The URL can be used to link to this page

2003-05-28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 28, 2003 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY ROY URRICO NORMAN HIMES CHARLES ABBATE PAUL HAYES JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT ALLAN BRYANT CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN MR. STONE-First on the agenda tonight, which is not on the agenda that any of you may have, is under Old Business, I have a resolution based upon a resolution by the Planning Board made, for the record, on the 22 of May, the Planning Board passed a resolution, “NOW, THEREFORE nd BE IT RESOLVED In accordance with the resolution prepared by Staff, The Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates its desire to be Lead Agency for SEQRA review”, in connection with the additions to the Wal-Mart facility, “and authorizes and directs the Department of Community Development to notify any other potentially involved agencies of such intent.”, that is the Planning Board to be Lead Agency. Therefore, I have a motion that I would like to offer for introduction. MOTION TO CONSENT TO THE MAY 22, 2003 PLANNING BOARD REQUEST FOR LEAD AGENCY STATUS FOR THE PURPOSES OF PERFORMING A SEQRA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF 6NYCRR PART 617, IN CONNECTION WITH AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2003 AND SITE PLAN 25-2003, Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 28 day of May, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2003 SEQRA TYPE: II DEBORAH CORNELL AGENT: DEXTER BLAKE OWNER: DEBORAH CORNELL ZONING (PREVIOUS) SR-20 (PHASE 3 APPROVAL YR. 1998) ZONING (CURRENT): SR-20 LOCATION: 21 FAWN LANE SHERMAN PINES, PHASE 3 APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A 14 FT. BY 28 FT. IN-GROUND SWIMMING POOL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 99-659 TAX MAP NO. 301.18-1-70 LOT SIZE: 0.24 ACRES SECTION: 179-5-020 (C2) 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) DEXTER BLAKE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 39-2003, Deborah Cornell, Meeting Date: May 28, 2003 “Project Location: 21 Fawn Lane Sherman Pines, Phase 3 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 14-foot by 28-foot in-ground swimming pool. Relief Required: Applicant requests 10 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum rear setback requirement of the Accessory Structures ordinance, per §179-5-020(C2). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 99659: 10/21/99, 1536 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with 2-car attached garage. Staff comments: Criteria considerations: 1) Being other pools exist in the Sherman Pines subdivision, might it be interpreted no change will occur in the character of the neighborhood, and being the relief is requested from the setback to the designated common area, might it also be interpreted no detriment to the nearby properties will occur? 2) If the pool is placed at a 20-foot rear setback, the separation distance to the dwelling will be 6 feet. Might this be interpreted as a feasible alternative? 3) Might 10 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum requirement be interpreted as moderate relative to the ordinance (50%)? 4) Might it be interpreted no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district will occur? 5) Might some of the difficulty be attributed to the size of the Planning Board approved lot (Phase 3 approved in 1998)?” MR. MC NULTY-No County. MR. STONE-Applicants, please come forward. Introduce yourselves. DEBBIE CORNELL MS. CORNELL-I’m Debbie Cornell, 21 Fawn Lane, Queensbury. MR. BLAKE-Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, my name is Dexter Blake. I’m a real estate associate with Levack Real Estate, the applicant Debbie Cornell, who I’ve been asked to represent tonight, is a broker associate with Levack Real Estate in Glens Falls. The application that we appear on this evening is, as you’ve indicated, Mr. Chairman, and that is relief from a rear yard setback for an in-ground swimming pool which she desires to have constructed. We have provided the Board with a certified survey of the property. We’ve indicated the area where the relief sought is. We’re asking the Board to act favorably upon this application and grant us the relief that we’ve requested. The 10 foot setback that would remain is more than ample, not only for the neighborhood, but is compounded by the fact that there is a five plus acre green space that is part of the Phase Five subdivision approval and which will for all time really serve as the ultimate buffer, not only to this property but also to Sherman Avenue behind. So we feel, with all due respect, that there are no adverse impacts with respect to the relief that we’re seeking. We sit here anxious to entertain any questions that you may have. We ask for your approval in this matter and if we can give you any help or any additional information, we’d be happy to do that. Thank you very much. MR. STONE-Okay. Just a couple of thoughts. Bruce, this is something I’d ask of you. We refer to this as a survey that they’ve provided. It’s really not a survey. It’s an addendum to a survey. The surveyor didn’t put the pool on there, I don’t believe. MR. FRANK-That’s correct. MR. BLAKE-Mr. Chairman, this is a survey as modified by the applicant and myself. MR. STONE-Okay. I just wanted to get that point across. Because every once in a while we get caught up. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) MR. BLAKE-You’re absolutely right. MR. STONE-The other concern I have, and it’s probably not going to make a difference in how we vote on this thing, but I guess I’m concerned because this is not the first one of these that we’ve had in this particular area. I’m concerned with the approval of small lot subdivisions, and I guess I will blame the Planning Board, to some extent, or the zoning or whatever, but without some kind of restriction on accessory structures, namely pools. I mean, we do get these requests all the time. They’re very reasonable requests, and we’re put in a position of having to be a nice guy or a bad guy, and it really is not something we should have to do. Anyway, you mention the lot behind her, the open space. That is owned by the Homeowners Association? MR. BLAKE-Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is. It’s part and parcel of Phase III subdivision of Sherman Pines, and it is owned by the Association of which the Fawn Lane homeowners are members. MR. STONE-Any questions anybody? MR. HIMES-Just one. It’s really kind of beside the point, but were you given a pink thing to post up on your property? You weren’t? MS. CORNELL-I’d have to say no because I don’t know what you’re talking about. MR. STONE-You got no pink sheet? Staff didn’t give you a pink sheet to put up? MS. CORNELL-Not to my knowledge. No. MR. STONE-Is there a rule and regulation in this Town to have house numbers on houses? MR. HIMES-I thought so. MR. FRANK-That’s part of the Town Code. It’s not part of the Zoning Ordinance. MR. STONE-I understand that, but you go down Fawn Lane, there aren’t many of them. MR. FRANK-I think it’s more for the 911 purposes, but I think there is a part of the Code stating you have to, yes. MR. STONE-Yes. I mean, we have to guess a lot, and that’s why the Staff usually, or they’re supposed to give out a little, when you get your packet of materials, a little sign that let’s us know we’re in the right place. MS. CORNELL-I don’t recall ever receiving that. MR. STONE-Okay. MS. CORNELL-And I know that the only number on my house is on my mailbox. MR. HIMES-Yes. Is that covered up with the flag? MS. CORNELL-Not to my knowledge. MR. ABBATE-The pink slips, signs, the pink signs that she didn’t receive, Mr. Chairman, I can probably answer this, is a direct result of the fact that the Town ran out of paper after doing 2,234 for Dunkin Donuts stores, and they ran out of paper. MR. STONE-He had to get that one in, folks. You’ll hear about that later. Any other questions? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) MR. FRANK-I will make a note to the support staff just to make sure they go out. I wasn’t aware. No one else complained about it. MR. STONE-Was any consideration given to moving the pool slightly, so that less variance was required? MS. CORNELL-I’d like to answer that. MR. STONE-Please. MS. CORNELL-I’ve consulted with two different local contractors who build pools, and the one gentleman told me that he could pull the pool very close to the house. I was then, my second opinion, and as I should say was Dan Sprague who I consider an expert in pools, said I will not put your pool that close to your house, you know, you can have anybody else do it, but I won’t do it, because with all of the snow and the ice and everything, it’s too close to your foundation. So that’s why I’m asking for the variance. MR. STONE-That’s a reasonable answer to my question. One of the things that we strive for, one of our mandates, is minimum relief. That’s all. Now, when you say 10 feet, that’ll be to the edge of the border on the pool, or do you know? MR. BLAKE-Yes, that would be to the edge of the, or at least to the wall of the pool, what they consider the 14 feet includes the apron of the pool itself. MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else? MR. URRICO-Because we’re asked a lot, minimal relief, as Mr. Stone suggested, was any consideration given to a smaller pool? MS. CORNELL-There was consideration. There is one size smaller that I could contract for. My neighbor almost across the street from me, did just get a variance, interestingly, for a 14 x 28 pool, and then she chose to put in a 10 by I believe 24 pool, but she did get the variance for that size. I guess I just felt as though if I was going to make that type of an investment, because I am a real estate agent, and I am concerned about the resale value of my home, that I’d like to go that one size up for resale value. MR. URRICO-And just because it’s been in the news lately, are there any covenants restricting pools? MS. CORNELL-There are not. I should have brought a copy of my covenants with me. MR. BLAKE-I made sure I ran to the hall of records today and indeed I did check that out for you. There are no restrictions with respect to that issue, but I wanted to make certain that we had the answer to that. MR. STONE-Just for the record, the Town of Queensbury does not enforce covenants. It is not in the Town’s mandate. They are enforceable by a private group. Anything else? Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) MR. STONE-Any other questions of the applicant? Then let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Norm. MR. HIMES-Thank you. I think, again, we have had other applications that are very similar in nature to yours and the properties are somewhat similar, and the last one I can remember was a lot more complicated than yours was, on a bend, on a corner, and that was approved, and not for that reason, I don’t feel that there’s any negative impact to the community certainly, or the neighborhood because of the pool and the fact, as you’ve mentioned in the application, that the, not public land, but the land behind your property line, it belongs to the Association. So that protects anything from the rear being impacted negatively. So, in short, I would be in favor of the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Well, in the interest of time, I agree with my fellow Board member, and I think your explanation for not wanting the pool any closer to the house makes sense. I try and place myself in a position of the applicant’s, and I don’t think I’d want it closer to the house either, and I think that we have granted variances for this in the past, and overall I do believe that your request is a reasonable request and I would support it. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I, too, would agree. We’ve granted similar relief in your neighborhood already, and I see this as just another example of doing the same thing over. So, no reason to deny it. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement with my fellow Board members. any problems I have with the pools goes back to what Mr. Stone said earlier, and I believe the cat’s out of the bag, so to speak, and I don’t think we can back track at this point. I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I essentially agree. In this particular case, other than seeing some kind of a detriment to the neighborhood or the community, which I don’t see either, you know, families have pools, and that’s part of our community. So I’m in favor of the application for the reasons already given. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Well, I can basically say ditto. We’ve granted this kind of relief before in this neighborhood. It’s, I guess, generic to this neighborhood. I see no detriment, so I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-And I certainly am not going to be in opposition to the Board members. This is a reasonable application. I certainly mentioned my concern, and that has nothing to do with you. You bought a lot in good faith, and you wanted to put a pool on it, and you’re doing the best you can to get one on this small lot, and I’m not demeaning your lot. I mean, it’s 10,000. It’s a quarter of an acre roughly, but having said all that, I need a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2003 DEBORAH CORNELL, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 21 Fawn Lane. Applicant proposes construction of a 14 foot by 28 foot in-ground swimming pool. Relief requested, applicant requests 10 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum rear setback requirement of the Accessory Structures Ordinance per 179-5-020(C2). The criteria used to assess this, an undesirable change in the neighborhood or the community, and we don’t feel that that is so. That it may be, in fact, as the applicant says, that there will be some 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) improvement certainly to the value of that property, or perhaps those near it. Whether the benefit to the applicant could be achieved, whether there’s a feasible alternative. Well, a feasible, possible, let’s say, but certainly not one that would be your choice, and you’ve gotten expert advice not to put the pool in close proximity to the house, and the Board here tends to agree with that. The amount of the variance sought it moderate. There’s no grave insult to the Code, and the lot is small, so that’s taken into consideration. You don’t have a world of space to do what you want to do, and the difficulty being self-created, as I just said, you didn’t have much area to work with, and what you’re trying to do is reasonable in connection with the construction that’s going to go on, a pool. So, for those reasons, I again move that we approve the application as submitted. Duly adopted this 28 day of May, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-There you go. MR. BLAKE-Thank you very much. MR. STONE-Get a building permit first, though. Remember that. MS. CORNELL-I will. AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-2003 SEQRA TYPE: II TOM CATLIN AGENT: DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER: TOM CATLIN ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 5 GREY LEDGES DRIVE, OFF RTE. 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE THE EXISTING 490 SQ. FT. ENCLOSED PORCH WITH A NEW ENCLOSED PORCH OF THE SAME SIZE AND IN THE SAME LOCATION AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SHORELINE AND SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/14/03 & APA TAX MAP NO. 239.16-1-1 LOT SIZE: 0.29 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-030 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 40-2003, Tom Catlin, Meeting Date: May 28, 2003 “Project Location: 5 Grey Ledges Drive, off Rte. 9L Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 490 sq. ft. enclosed porch to replace the existing screen porch of the same size. Relief Required: Applicant requests 3 feet of relief from the 12 foot minimum side yard setback requirement as well as 31 feet of relief from the 50 minimum shoreline setback requirement of the WR-1A Zone per §179-4-030. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None applicable. Staff comments: While it appears as though the replacement of the seasonal porch will not increase the existing setback encroachments, would it be feasible to redesign the porch to allow for a greater sideline setback. ?Clip the corner of the porch?? Decrease the depth of the porch to increase the shoreline setback ? The proposed unheated, non-insulated porch would not constitute an increase in living space, therefore, no septic improvements are required by code.” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form May 14, 2003 Project Name: Catlin, Tom Owner: Tom Catlin ID Number: QBY-03-AV-40 County Project#: May03-28 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to replace the existing 490 sq. ft. enclosed porch with a new enclosed porch of the same size and the same location and seeks relief from the shoreline and side setback 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) requirements. Site Location: 5 Grey Ledges Drive, off Route 9L Tax Map Number(s): 239.16-1- 1 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to remove an existing enclosed 490 sq. ft. porch and to replace it with a porch of the same size. The porch is located 31 ft. from the shoreline where 50’ is required. The information submitted indicates the porch is only to be used seasonally because it is screened in. The parcel is narrow with septic to the southeast and the driveway area on the east side of the house. The plans indicate a trench drain will be installed to capture roof runoff. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 5/19/03. MR. STONE-Gentlemen. MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I’m Dennis MacElroy from Environmental Design, representing the Catlins, Tom and Jude Catlin, owners and applicants on this action. Tom is with me here at the desk. Mrs. Catlin is in the audience. The application before you is for a property that’s on the east side, east shore of Dunham’s Bay. Property that sits down at the lakefront you don’t see it from Route 9L which is the access to a private drive, Grey Ledges Drive. The property is, the structure is around 90 years old. The Catlin family has been the owners of that for the past 85 years. They would desire some improvements to the structure, including a new roof. As I understand of particular interest and jurisdiction to the Board is the replacement of an existing enclosed porch, as described in the application, 490 square feet of an existing enclosed porch. They’d like to remove it and rebuild it to the exact dimensions that currently exist. In doing that, they are subject to the, as always, the side yard and shoreline setbacks, which are currently less than the standard. The house, again, has existed there for 90 years, and at some point in time zoning came along and didn’t quite fit with the way the house was situated. Again, it is their goal, their desire to rebuild the porch as it exists, the same circulation pattern that exists from doorways of the existing structure. As you’ll hear, there are comments from the neighboring properties which are in support of making this improvement to the structure, and again, I would stress that it doesn’t increase the size of that enclosed porch. It only rehabilitates what is there and you’ll see from the application, which has the site plan, it has an elevation drawing an also a floor plan of the existing property, and also photographs which, from a nice spring day in April. MR. STONE-Did you have to remind us of the winter that was? MR. MAC ELROY-That was April 8. MR. STONE-I know. MR. MAC ELROY-But it gives an indication of the fact that it is deteriorating. There is just an open storage area below. There’s no foundation. No foundation plan in the renovation, sonatube type foundation with, again, an open area below to serve what is a seasonal property to begin with. MR. STONE-Comment made by Staff about no septic improvements required. What is the status of the septic system? You say the house is 90 years old. Is the septic system 90 years old? MR. MAC ELROY-I’ll turn that over to Tom. MR. CATLIN-No, sir. The septic was installed in 1969. MR. STONE-So, but it’s still regularly maintained? MR. CATLIN-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions, comments? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) MR. ABBATE-Just some comments. As he indicated in the earlier applicant, I’d like to place myself in the applicant’s position, and my comments are not an indication that I’m going to not go along with your application, but I have to be consistent. Whenever I see an answer, are there any feasible alternatives to this variance, and the answer is no, there are no feasible alternatives that are consistent with the applicant’s goal, you know, life consists of alternatives and compromises, and I suspect it was just wording on your part, because I do believe there probably are some alternative, feasible alternatives involved in this thing, but it’s not an indication of how I feel, but I just had to be consistent because I question every applicant that puts no, and I want to be fair to you in the same thing. Overall, I don’t see your request as an outstanding request to do something drastic. It’s the same size. Mr. MacElroy pointed that out, and it’s about 90 years old, you indicated. It’s time for an oil change, so to speak, and, having said that, I’ll just say thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions, comments anybody wants to make? I guess the only comment I would make at this point, well, I’ll make it later. It’s not something you can answer. It’s just a feeling. All right. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of? In favor of? Anybody opposed? I understand there’s correspondence, at least Mr. MacElroy hopes there is. MR. MC NULTY-I didn’t find any. MR. CATLIN-I’ve got it right here. MR. STONE-If you have some letters that they’ve written. MR. HAYES-We’ll get it in, if he’s got, we’ll get a copy one way or the other. MR. STONE-He hasn’t got it. MR. MAC ELROY-Sue made copies of it for me today. MR. MC NULTY-Well, it’s not in here, unless she’s got it hidden outside of everything. MR. STONE-Okay. Why don’t you bring them up and he’ll read them in. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Let’s see, the first one is from Peter Rief. He says, “My wife are sending this letter in support of the variance proposed by Tom and Jude Catlin of 5 Grey Ledges Drive – Rt.9L. Along with Mitchell and Charlotte Potvin…we own an adjacent lakeside home (formerly owned by Franklin and Annette Barber). We have no objections to the Catlin’s variance application. In fact, we fully support the Catlin’s plan to re-build the front porch of their charming 90 year old cottage. Please feel free to contact us…should you have any questions. Sincerely, Peter Rief” And we also have a letter from Charlotte and Mitchell Potvin, “We are neighbors most closely aligned with the Catlins, on the south side of their property at Grey Ledges Drive. We would greatly appreciate it, if the town would allow the Catlins to improve their property appearance by rehabilitating an existing condition (the ninety year old porch) which would greatly improve the character of our neighborhood. We see more of their porch than they do, as it is in our direct view from our deck and boat house. It would be a pleasure to see it re-built, as it is in dire need of it. Respectfully yours, Charlotte and Mitchell Potvin” And we have a record of a phone call from a Douglas Wrigley, Dunham’s Bay, regarding a public notice for Tom Catlin. Mr. Wrigley has no objections to the proposed construction of an enclosed porch at 5 Grey Ledges Drive, and finally we have a letter from Salvatore Ervolina. It says, “I own a summer home at 11 Grey Ledges Drive, Queensbury and am a neighbor of Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Catlin. I received a notice from your office indicating that there is a public meeting scheduled for May 28, 2003 to consider a variance to the zoning requirements so that the Catlins can replace their existing enclosed porch with a new enclosed porch of the same size and in the same location. I want to go on record that I have no objection 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) to the proposed work and recommend that the variance be approved. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion. Sincerely, Salvatore Ervolina” MR. STONE-That’s it? MR. MC NULTY-That’s it. MR. STONE-Let me close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-All right. Any other comments? Let’s start with Chuck. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. As I indicated earlier, my questioning the paragraph three of no feasible alternatives had nothing to do with how I felt about the application. I think your request is a reasonable request. What would I do if I were in the shoes of the applicant? The same thing that you’re doing. So, you’re indicating, and Mr. MacElroy indicated, it’s going to be the same size. It is 90 years old. It’s time for a reasonable change, and I’m sure that Mrs. Catlin wanted to comment on the septic system, but that was okay. I have no problems with the application. Staff notes indicate that it’s going to be unheated, non-insulated porch. It’s not going to constitute an increase in living space. Based on the information in Mr. MacElroy’s presentation this evening, and the fact that neighbors are in support of your application, I would support your application. MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I, too, would be in agreement. I think that we can grant this relief based upon the fact that it’s pre-existing nonconforming. There’s nothing you can do about that, and the porch has well outlived its usefulness in its age. So I have no problem with granting the relief. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m also in agreement that had this been a plan that would further encroach on the setbacks, I might object, but because you’re maintaining the status quo, so to speak, I’m in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree with my other Board members. The applicant is not asking for any additional dimensional relief, just replacing a porch with a porch, and I’m not sure how, it would take something pretty drastic not to think that that was reasonable. I don’t see that here. So I’m in favor. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Again, I can basically say ditto. It strikes me that the applicant could play games and repair a part of this and then repair another part and accomplish the same thing, and given that it’s the same thing, just replacing with new material, I see no problem with it. I’d be in favor. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I agree with my fellow Board members. I think if you were tearing the whole thing down and rebuilding it, maybe we’d take a harder look at some of the distances involved, but under the circumstances, I would support the application. Thank you. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) MR. STONE-I think Mr. Himes put it well, in the sense that I’m not happy with something that close to the lake, but it is that close to the lake, and all you’re trying to do is make it stand up for a few more years and improve it’s look. I would encourage you to be sure about the septic system. I mean, I know Mr. MacElroy is an engineer and he’s a property owner on the lake, as I am, and we’re all concerned with what our on-site systems do, and that’s, and I think that’s one of the good things about the Town Code. If you do make a major change, then you do have to bring the system up to current Code, and I’d just encourage you to look at it. The other thing, and this is more humorous, this is directed to Mr. MacElroy, I would look on my drawing of the property. There is a misspelled word, and principle, “le”, does not refer to a building. It refers to what we try to live up to here are principles. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. MR. STONE-Now, I need a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-2003 TOM CATLIN, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: 5 Grey Ledges Drive, off Rte. 9L. The applicant proposes construction of a 490 square foot enclosed porch to replace the existing screen porch of the same size. Relief Required. Mr. Catlin is requesting three feet of relief from the 12 foot minimum side yard setback requirement as well as 31 feet of relief from the 50 minimum shoreline setback requirements of WR-1A zone, Section 179-4-030. How would the applicant benefit from the granting of this Area Variance? Well, Mr. Catlin would be allowed to replace an existing enclosed porch with a new enclosed porch of identical dimensions, and the existing structure, as he indicated, is 90 years old and has not begun to deteriorate, but is deteriorating. What effect would this variance have on the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community? As far as we can see based on testimony this evening, no adverse effect, as the proposal calls for the replacement of an existing enclosed porch with a similar structure, and in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, it would improve not only the property but the area as well. Are there feasible alternatives to this variance? Not really. Perhaps there may be, but they might border on being unreasonable. Is the amount of relief substantial relief relative to the Ordinance? Relief from shoreline setback is 31 feet or 62% of requirement, 50%. Relief from side yard setback is nine foot or seventy-five percent of the requirement, twelve foot. Will the variance have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No. The physical location of the proposed improvement will not change from the existing size or area at the present time and will, in fact, have a positive, in my opinion, impact on the physical, environment, and the neighborhood as well, and based on that, Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve Area Variance No. 40-2003. Duly adopted this 28 day of May, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-There you go, gentlemen. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2003 SEQRA TYPE: II TERRY KARANIKAS AGENT: N/A OWNER: TERRY KARANIKAS ZONING: UR-1A, SFR-1A LOCATION: COUNTRY CLUB ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 10,625 SQ. FT. SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/14/03 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) TAX MAP NO.: 296.15-1-18; 296.15-1-24 LOT SIZE: 10.09 ACRES & 6.62 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-090 STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 41-2003, Terry Karanikas, Meeting Date: May 28, 2003 “Project Location: Country Club Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 10,625 sq. ft. single-family dwelling on a parcel without frontage on a town road, and proposes to access the parcel from the applicant’s adjoining parcel, which exceeds the minimum frontage requirements. Relief Required: Applicant requests 40 feet of relief from the 40-foot minimum road frontage requirements, per §179-4-090. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None. Staff comments Criteria considerations: 1) Might it be interpreted no change will occur in the character of the neighborhood and no detriment to the nearby properties will occur? 2) Might the only feasible alternative be consolidating the two parcels, which the applicant attempted to do, but was unsuccessful because the parcels are in two different school districts? 3) Might 40 feet of relief from the 40-foot minimum requirement be interpreted as substantial relative to the ordinance (100%)? 4) Might it be interpreted no adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district will occur? 5) Might the difficulty be attributed to the applicant not being permitted to consolidate the parcels? SEQR Status: Type II” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form May 14, 2003 Project Name: Karanikas, Terry Owner: Terry Karanikas ID Number: QBY-03-AV-41 County Project:#: May03-33 Current Zoning: UR-1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes the construction of a 10,625 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Relief requested from the minimum road frontage requirements. Site Location: Country Club Road Tax Map Number(s): 296.15-1-18 296.15-1-24 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct a home on a parcel of land that does not have physical road frontage. The school district boundary runs along the two properties that the owner proposes to develop. One of the parcels has road frontage onto Country Club Road where the applicant will put in the driveway to connect the parcel without road frontage. The total parcel size is 15.7 acres, including both lots. The information indicates the parcels can not be combined because of the School District issue. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 5/19/03. MR. STONE-Is there anybody representing the applicant? I think we’ll put it off for the rest of the meeting. If he doesn’t show, we’ll table it until a future meeting. So we’ll move on. JON LAPPER MR. LAPPER-Could we take the Saturn next, because the Dunkin Donuts people aren’t here yet? Northeast American Realty. MR. STONE-Okay. All right. This is Area Variance No. 43-2003. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 43-2003 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED NORTHEAST AMERICAN REALTY, LLC AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER: FRANK PARILLO ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 92 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TWO ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNS AN ONE ADDITIONAL FREESTANDING PYLON SIGN FOR A NEW SATURN CAR DEALERSHIP. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE NUMBER OF SIGNS ALLOWED AND RELIEF FROM THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS FOR ONE OF THE FREESTANDING SIGNS. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 55-2002; BP 2003-225 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/14/03 TAX MAP NO. 302.07-1-14 LOT SIZE: 5.76 ACRES SECTION: 140-6 (B3, 4) 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) JON LAPPER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 43-2003, Northeast American Realty, LLC, Meeting Date: May 28, 2003 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of three wall signs and two freestanding signs for a Saturn dealership. Relief Requested: Applicant requests relief for two additional wall signs to be displayed on the Quaker Road facade of the building as well as relief for an additional freestanding sign. Additionally, the proposed extra freestanding sign is to be at a height of 30 feet, requiring 5 feet of relief from the 25 foot maximum allowable height. Per §140-6, B, (3), (c); a business on a corner lot may have two wall signs, however, there can only be one sign per side of the building respective to the street frontage. Further, pursuant to the same section, only one freestanding sign is permitted in this instance. Application materials depict conflicting information. The application shows two freestanding signs of 35 sq. ft. and 50 sq. ft. respectively. The supporting documentation (Saturn Corp) identifies signs of {5 x 14} 70 sq. ft. and {10 x10} 100 sq. ft. respectively. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2003-225 Conversion of warehouse to Auto dealership (Saturn) SP 55- 2002 resolved 2/18/03 44000 sq. ft. conversion to auto dealership (Saturn) Several other history items applicable to previous uses. Staff comments: While the proposed additional wall signs are visible from Quaker Road, the text copy of the proposed signs indicates that they are primarily directional, convenience signs. The additional freestanding sign appears to be a significant request. Two freestanding signs are allowable in a business complex with separate entrances on two streets; however, this is not a business complex and has access to only one single-business-property street. It does not appear as though another currently has two freestanding signs along Quaker Road. Clarification, of which signs are proposed, exactly, is necessary. Additionally, if the larger signs are proposed, additional relief will be necessary and further advertisement may be appropriate. Staff conversation with the Town Wastewater Department has revealed potential conflicts with the placement of the freestanding signs due to the existing wastewater infrastructure in the area of the signs. Additional construction details may provide clarification in these matters.” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form May 14, 2003 Project Name: North East American Realty, LLC Owner: Frank Parillo ID Number: QBY-03-SV-43 County Project#: May03-37 Current Zoning: HC-Int. Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes two additional wall signs and one additional freestanding pylon sign for a new Saturn Car Dealership. Relief requested from the number of signs allowed and relief from the height requirement for one of the freestanding signs. Site Location: 92 Quaker Road Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The applicant proposes to install 3 wall signs and 2 freestanding signs for the proposed Saturn Dealership at the corner of 254 and Lafayette. The ordinance allows for 2 wall signs and 1 free standing sign. The applicant has indicated that 450 sq. ft. would be allowed for the signs allowed, but proposes 173 sq. ft. for the total of proposed 5 signs, 1) 35 sq. ft. illuminated freestanding sign 25 ft. height – “Saturn”; 2) 50 sq. ft. Illuminated free standing 25 ft. height – “Used Cars from Saturn”; 3) 75 sq. ft. illuminated wall sign – “Saturns of the Adirondacks”; 4) 7 sq. ft. illuminated wall sign – “Express Maintenance”; 5) 6 sq. ft. illuminated wall sign – “Service Reception”. The signs meet the setback distance from the property line and total less than the square footage allowed for the site. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 5/19/03. MR. STONE-They didn’t comment about the Queensbury Sign Ordinance, which they usually do? MR. MC NULTY-No. They usually do. MR. LAPPER-I think they were very supportive of this one. They were very nice. MR. MC NULTY-And it’s an Unlisted Action. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) MR. STONE-I know it’s an Unlisted Action. I got that. All right, gentlemen. MR. LAPPER-For the record, with Rich Parillo, who is the principal of Albany Saturn, as well as Saturn of the Adirondacks, which he plans will be under construction within the next two months on Quaker Road. Before we came here to talk about signs, we’ve had a long process before the Planning Board where we hammered out a lot of details. The Planning Board ultimately viewed this as a very positive project. As you’ve already seen a lot of the site, the building that was there to begin with has been torn down. The building that’s still there will be renovated into the dealership building. MR. STONE-That’s the question, I was going to ask. Okay. That will stay and be renovated. MR. LAPPER-Yes. I submitted along with the application as much of the site plan as I needed to to show you the distance from the road. If you can see as far back as the green board on the bottom, that’s facing Quaker at the top. So the building that’s there now is what’s in the light tan, and everything else are the site amenities. Part of my argument for why this is a minimal request and why the site is going to be more positive with this than it has been is that, if you’ve been down Central Avenue to see their existing site, and everyone probably hasn’t been, but extremely well landscaped site, really pretty, and that’s what they’re doing here, granite curbs, sprinkler system. The caliper of the trees far exceeds the Town’s requirements and the Town’s requirements are pretty significant. So if you see on the green board there are significant street trees all along Quaker and Lafayette. Right now, in terms of the site design, everything just sheet flows into Hovey Pond. Now there’s going to be on-site treatment. So this is a major updating and renovation of an existing site that could have stayed the way it was as a grandfathered site. In terms of the sign package, obviously I’ve spent too many nights here talking about signs, and when a client like Rich comes in to talk to me about signs, we start out talking about the Board’s philosophy. So it’s unusual where I’m able to submit an application for I think 177 square feet, where a maximum of 450 is allowed. If they could have had one sign on the building of 300 square feet, in the front, facing Quaker, another 100 facing Lafayette, those are significant signs. A 10 by 30 foot sign is like a billboard, and that could have been done without a variance. So what they’re asking for, obviously Saturn is not a dealership that requires incredible huge signs, and that’s why we’re able to come in with this because they’re package is tasteful. MR. STONE-You also have a place for people to sleep, though, according to the advertisement. You can sleep on it. MR. LAPPER-Plenty of room for that. So in terms of the signs on the building, the three signs that we’re asking for, Saturn of the Adirondacks, Express Maintenance, and Service/Reception, in the Planning Staff notes they refer to Service/Reception and Express Maintenance as essentially directional in character even though they’re on the building, they certainly don’t qualify as directional signs, but they have that purpose, and they’re seven square feet and six square feet each, and then the Saturn of the Adirondacks facade sign is just 75 square feet. So even though none of them are on the Lafayette Street side, which doesn’t really, there’s not a lot of visibility on the Lafayette Street side, everything’s on Quaker, but also because it’s a corner property, that gives them the bang for the buck, but in total that’s, you know, less than 90 square feet on that facade on three relatively small signs. In terms of the pylon signs, I want to just clarify. What we submitted, we had Saturn’s sign package, but obviously they come in different prototypes, and what I submitted was an exact replica of what it’s going to look like in terms, visually, but not in terms of the size. So what we put in the application, the 50 square feet, and we said 35, and it’s actually 33 when you do the math. So it’s really only 175 square feet in total that we’re looking for, rather than 177. Our application is right. So the Planning Staff said, we had to clarify, and that’s right, and we should have pointed that out in the application, but the pictures were pictures of the signs that were not to scale. They were larger. So what we’re asking for is just what we submitted in the application, 33 and 50 for those two signs. So, in general, yes, we’re asking for five signs because that’s what the applicant thinks would be appropriate. The used car business is 50% of their business and they think it’s real 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) important that they have a sign that says that, but they’re still relatively small signs, compared to jamming all the stuff on one billboard sized sign on the front that could say, used cars and anything else they want without a variance. So all in all, compared to other applications that have come before this Board, I think this is certainly minor in terms of total square footage, and in terms of the total number of signs, if they could have one on Lafayette, one on Quaker, and one freestanding, that would be three signs. We’ve got a total of five, but of the five signs, one of them is six square feet, and one of them is seven square feet. So I hope the Board will see that this is a relatively modest application, even though it is for signs. MR. STONE-I know this is a Sign Variance hearing. For my edification, can you take me through the site a little bit, in terms of entrances and the trees that are there and going to stay? MR. LAPPER-All of the trees that you see here are new, because it didn’t make sense to try and transplant the trees that are there. We didn’t think that they were going to survive. There’s really, there’s no entrance onto Quaker Road. Right now, there’s a curb cut that’s relatively close to Quaker Road, on Lafayette. So we’re moving that back considerably so that there’s more stacking distance to the intersection of Quaker. You may recall that you granted a variance a few months ago to the Meineke Muffler owner, Paul Lorenz, across the street, and as part of that, we eliminated the curb cut that was right next to the entrance on his site. So this is going to cause a lot less conflict than what’s there now, where they’re across the street from each other. There’s one other curb cut on Lafayette in the back, but that is primarily for the car carriers to come in and off load. All of the customers will be directed to the front, whether it’s for purchase or for maintenance, and the new car inventory is in front, and that’s pretty much it. We just beefed up the landscaping. MR. STONE-So the property goes behind the furniture store there? MR. LAPPER-Yes. The furniture store is here. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-But we added, actually, I think these are pretty significant existing pine trees, they’re mature. MR. STONE-They’re there. Yes, there’s a lot of trees there. MR. LAPPER-We added additional ones here. We added a, these easement for future connection in case that gets redeveloped, in accordance with the Town Code for shared access and that’s about it, and just a lot of shrubs and flowers because that’s how they run their business. MR. STONE-You’re talking about auto carriers coming in to the back of the building? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Can they make that turn off of Lafayette? MR. LAPPER-Yes. We did that. MR. STONE-I’m sure it’s been asked, but. MR. LAPPER-No, the engineer did that, checked the radius and we’re all set, and C.T. Male reviewed it. MR. STONE-Okay. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) MR. LAPPER-So, yes. I guess, if I show you this, this is a rendering. It looks a little like Paris with the trees, but this is what the building would look like from the Quaker and Lafayette intersection, just a perspective of the building. MR. STONE-That’s the building. That’s the inside of the building. MR. LAPPER-Yes, I’m pointing to that. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-While you’re standing there, Counselor, let me ask you a question. You mentioned car carriers, traffic, Lafayette Street. Are car carriers ever parked on Lafayette Street blocking traffic? MR. LAPPER-No. Because the whole site was designed, we put the curb cut, we lined up the curb cut with the back of the building with this entrance drive, with the drive aisle, so that the car carrier would come in here and off load, and then turn around and come out. So absolutely, on the site. MR. HAYES-The varsity boys on the Planning Board went through that thoroughly, I’m sure. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-We’re a frustrated Planning Board. You know that, Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-No problem with that. MR. HIMES-How do the curb cuts line up with the street that goes up to the shopping center where Staples is? Does it square off with that? MR. STONE-Broad Street? MR. LAPPER-No, that’s Bank Street. MR. STONE-Bank Street. MR. LAPPER-And it doesn’t. That was an issue that we discussed with the Board because, in general, the Board, the Planning Board would have rather had that as a four way intersection, if that was possible, but the problem is if you look at that site, where Bank Street lines up, it’s on the other side of the street from the building, so we couldn’t have, because the back entrance is for the car carriers that couldn’t make the turn. So it wasn’t possible to line it up, and what we showed the Planning Board was that the amount of use of that back site was primarily for car carriers and not for the public, and that’s why they agreed to that. MR. HIMES-Thank you. MR. ABBATE-And you did address the inaccuracies on the, well, I’ve got a couple of things. MR. LAPPER-I only addressed the inaccuracies that I’m aware of so far. MR. ABBATE-Well, let’s see, we have one on the letter dated April 16, 2003 to Lew Stone, and there was another one in the, following questions reflect the criteria in paragraph two, it says while the total number of signs requested (5) exceeds the number allowed (3), the total square footage (173) is far less than the permitted (450). MR. LAPPER-Yes. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) MR. ABBATE-You took care of that one. Okay, and then also compliance with Sign Ordinance you had one sign’s length six feet by 5.5 equals 35, but it’s only 33 feet. MR. LAPPER-And that’s corrected. You’re correct and our math is wrong. MR. ABBATE-I’ve got one more. Here we go, and the exterior of signs, it says dimensions, 10 by 10 sign head at standard heights of 26 feet, 30 feet, 34 feet and 42, and then if you look down, 8 by 8, and then underneath that is 5 by 5, sign head is a standard height of 15 feet. That was addressed as well. MR. LAPPER-Yes, because it is going with our application rather than those pictures. MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re asking for a 33 foot freestanding, and a. MR. LAPPER-And a fifty square foot. MR. STONE-And a 50 square foot freestanding. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. URRICO-Mr. Lapper, I just want to clarify the position of the signage. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. URRICO-The wall sign, that will say Saturn of the Adirondacks, and that will be facing Quaker Road? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. URRICO-And then the directional signs are the ones over the bays? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. URRICO-Now, is that the Express Maintenance and then the Service/Reception? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. URRICO-And then there is, okay. It looks a little different on this one. MR. LAPPER-Yes, and that, I sent you in the sign package that Saturn provides, and what we’re doing is what the engineer drew up and I’d like to believe that that’s the perspective. It may appear a little bigger than, but on the left on the top corner is the big sign. MR. ABBATE-And the pennant road sign you indicated was five by fourteen, that’s 70 square feet, really, on Section Five of your exterior signs. It says used car Saturn, from Saturn, it says five by fourteen. MR. LAPPER-Does it say that? MR. ABBATE-Well, somebody penned it in. So that’s 70 square feet. MR. LAPPER-If you look on, I’m sorry, used cars from Saturn? MR. ABBATE-Yes, it says Section Five, pennant road signs, exterior signs. It’s the last page on the. MR. LAPPER-And again, what’s correct is the 10 by 5, on the application. The only, those, I didn’t have pictures from Saturn for these, these small signs are so small no one’s ever made 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) them. That would be my argument, but their package that they asked for, that the sent all the dealers, are bigger. MR. ABBATE-They five by fourteen is not correct, it’s not accurate? MR. LAPPER-Right. It’s 10 by 5. MR. URRICO-I’d like to finish what I was asking. There will be no wall signs on the Lafayette Street side? MR. LAPPER-Correct. MR. URRICO-Now, where will the freestanding signs be? MR. LAPPER-If you look, and this isn’t easy to see, but on the portion of the site plan that we submitted with the application. MR. URRICO-The freestanding signs are the Saturn sign and the used car sign? MR. LAPPER-Rich is pointing out that my map is a little bit off. If you, you see this that was submitted? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. LAPPER-The Saturn would be the one that says Second Sign, which is nearer to the corner but not at the corner. MR. STONE-To the west of the property? MR. LAPPER-To the west of the property, and the Used sign would be all the way to the east of the property. MR. STONE-There’s nothing in the middle of the property? MR. LAPPER-No. What those are, you see those little pads there that are brick? Those are raised 18 inches, or six inches off the ground, and those are display, but they’re only six inches off the ground. So it’s not like you’re looking up at something, just to raise them six inches above the inventory, just to showcase four cars. MR. STONE-Certain cars. I mean, there will be cars parked on there? MR. LAPPER-Yes, and that’s like more than twice the size of a regular parking spot. So that just gives you more room to make it look pretty. MR. STONE-So where is this proposed sign that you show in the middle? MR. LAPPER-That’s gone. That was what we had showed at the site plan that was proposed at the time, but when they actually laid it out. MR. STONE-So this is an incomplete application? MR. LAPPER-No, it’s just a minor change at the last minute. You see where it says Second Sign at the corner? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. LAPPER-That’s correct. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) MR. HAYES-For the first sign. MR. LAPPER-For the first sign. MR. STONE-That’s for the Saturn sign. MR. LAPPER-That’s for the Saturn sign. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And the Used Cars sign would be west of the east brick display area, just past that. MR. STONE-Of the one on the corner of the property. MR. HAYES-Right. MR. STONE-This display pad? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Right there, 15 feet. MR. STONE-Okay. It’s over there. All right. MR. LAPPER-That raises another issue. The last point that I haven’t responded to in the Staff notes was the sewer line easement, and if you look on that map, it shows you where the sewer line easement is, and it won’t conflict. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. MC NULTY-Which of these signs is the one that’s 30 feet high? MR. LAPPER-The Number One that Mr. Hayes pointed out as we said Number Two, the one closer to the corner. MR. STONE-The one that says Saturn. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. STONE-That’s 30 feet high. MR. LAPPER-Yes, because that’s the principal sign. MR. URRICO-The one that says Second Sign on it? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HIMES-Would you address why it has to be five feet over the Code? MR. STONE-Roy, have we got all of your questions? We’ve interrupted you four times already. MR. URRICO-Yes, I think so. MR. HIMES-I’m sorry, Roy. MR. URRICO-That’s all right. MR. STONE-Norm, go ahead. What have you got? Have you got something? 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) MR. HIMES-Yes. I wanted to ask for an explanation as to why the sign has to be five feet higher than the 25 allowed. MR. LAPPER-The simple, practical reason there is that they already own that sign, and they’d rather not have to pay $25,000 to have it re-fabricated. MR. STONE-I can only suggest that we had somebody else on Quaker Road come in with that argument, and we didn’t buy it, a few years ago. MR. LAPPER-If we had to leave something on the table, that five feet would be what we would leave on the table. MR. STONE-I knew you’d have something to leave on the table. I mean, to us, you know, and you’ve told your client how we look at the Sign Ordinance in Queensbury, and height is one that we seldom, seldom budge on. So the other one would be how high? MR. LAPPER-Twenty-five. MR. STONE-They’d both be 25? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Okay. So you don’t need relief, all you need relief is for number of signs. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other things before we open the public hearing? All right. Let me do that. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application, this modified application? Anybody opposed to this modified application? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-I find no correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Okay. I think we’ve answered all our questions. Let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. In looking at the request, even though there’s a request for additional wall signage with the Express Maintenance and the Service/Reception, they’re pretty minimalist, and I think that the appearance of the structure is one that is, you know, definitely a plus. It’s not really, it’s an amalgamation like a lot of the dealerships on Quaker Road are. I basically would be in favor of the Saturn of the Adirondacks one and the Express Maintenance and the Service/Reception. As far as the signs out front, the primary dealership sign, even though it’s a little bit more than what we usually grant, is it still going to be higher? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. STONE-No, he took that off the table. It’s going to be a conforming sign. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. STONE-The only thing is the number, when it comes to freestanding. Will we allow two versus one. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) MR. UNDERWOOD-I still would question, you know, whether you really need to have a separate sign saying Used Cars from Saturn. I think everybody knows car dealerships sell used cars, and I think your product kind of sells itself. You get a lot of repeat business from people, and, you know, I think it’s different than a normal dealership. I can understand your request, but I think I still would like to see just the single sign out front. MR. STONE-I would anticipate that position, but I guess I would just say in response that, because we could have 450, I feel like we’re really giving a lot to get that sign which Rich thinks is important to his business, and that’s different than most people would really go down to this few square feet. MR. STONE-Well, let us comment and we’ll give you a chance at the end. MR. LAPPER-Certainly. MR. STONE-We don’t want to have our individual statements challenged. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m basically in total agreement with Jim. I think the wall signs, to me, make sense. I think the total signage there is minimal and I think probably necessary, compared to some of the other signage that we’ve given similar businesses in that location. I think it’s fairly similar and consistent, and I don’t have a problem with the main sign, the one that’s depicted on this map as Second Sign. I don’t have a problem with that, but I do have a problem with the second sign. I’d like, if it’s really needed, I would like to see it combined with the main sign, somehow, or left out all together. MR. HAYES-It appears that the Planning Board has done a lot of work on this project, in advance of our review, and I must say that I see the overall project as a dramatic improvement in that corner lot. The building was there before sat there for a long time, and I think that the fact that the applicant tore down the front of this building and essentially moved a lot of the impact back from Quaker Road is already a large improvement, and I’m certainly in favor of that. I have seen the Saturn Dealership in Albany, and I must say that, of the car dealerships in the area, or even in that area, that that was certainly one of the better, less impact sites, less impact in a sense of pollution, or sign pollution, certainly, because the quality of the site is nice. So the applicant’s position that this is actually, even though there’s additional signage in this particular circumstance, it’s actually soft signage, or designed to be soft signage. I would actually concur in that viewpoint. I will also say that in my experience with car dealerships in Albany and in Glens Falls, it is quite common, if not almost entirely the dealerships maintain a second sign for used cars. I can think of the car dealerships in Town, Whiteman’s, and these other ones, they all have a second sign for used cars, because, again, it’s a significant portion of their business. The fact that the applicant has reduced the total square footage of those two signs to the extent that they have, and compromised on the height, makes me believe that in the end, the existence of a second sign on a site this large, with the buildings as far back as they are, I do not think is going to be a detriment or a negative on the neighborhood in this particular case, and I think there’s a compromise that’s been put forth here by the applicant, including the nature of the signage on the buildings. As I look at my pictures, the fact that Saturn of the Adirondacks is kind of subtly placed on that building, to me again, is, at least in part, a recognition of our overprotective or certainly very protective nature of the Queensbury Sign Ordinance, but I don’t think you’re trying to avoid that, with this second freestanding sign. I guess I always look at signage and its overall impact on the lot and its impact on the neighborhood, as far as the visibility, and I just don’t see the second sign as being something that’s going to be overwhelming or cumulatively these signs are going to be a problem for the neighborhood. The applicant has given a reason why he feels he needs the second sign, which in this case, to me, I accept. So I’m in favor of the application, and I guess I don’t have a problem with the relatively small second freestanding sign either. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) MR. MC NULTY-Well, I appreciate that the applicant hasn’t come in and tried to play games with us, because as has been indicated, they could have asked for a lot more square footage, and they could have come in and asked for the additional square footage and then compromised, tried to talk us into what they were looking for. So, I appreciate that. Nevertheless, when I look at this, I think like the majority of the Board members that have spoken so far, I’ve got no real problem with the signs on the front of the building. We certainly have granted similar relief to several other automotive type facilities in that general area, allowing some small directional or additional signs over the bays, and I think this will be fine. It’ll look neat and it will be consistent with granting that, but, I, too, have a problem with the second sign. As Staff has indicated, the majority of single purposes businesses down Quaker Road only have one freestanding sign. The other thing that strikes me is this applicant has got what I would think would be a prime location for an auto dealership, because you’re the first one that people come to when they come down Quaker Road. They’ve got to go a long ways further to get to anybody else. So I think you’ve got an advantage there. I do appreciate the design of the Saturn dealerships. I, too, have been past the one in Albany, and it certainly is attractive, but nevertheless, I’m still left hung up on the second sign. I could approve everything except the second sign. MR. STONE-Okay. Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I think I, Jaime’s comments reflect my feeling about the application quite exactly. I’ve been wringing my hands here about the second sign, too, but I do feel that they’re asking for considerably less than half of what they would be allowed, and, you know, the square footage and all, and they’re coming down, the height problem is gone. So I think, in this particular case, my feelings come together as our Sign Ordinance is not being damaged by what is happening here. The tastefulness that is reflected in the plans probably will also be reflected in the signage. It’ll probably fit in nicely, and the trees along, so, I would be in support of the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I agree that this is going to be a dramatic improvement. This application, Counselor, has put me in an intellectual overload, so to speak. I don’t have any problems with the wall signs. I truly don’t. I have gone to Colonie on a number of occasions for family and it’s a gorgeous Saturn site down there. No question about it. Unless somebody can convince me otherwise, I think I would agree with Jaime and Norm in that I could go along with the application, including the two freestanding signs, unless I hear something that would be dramatically different. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. STONE-I just pointed out to Mr. Hayes, I made my decision up listening to Mr. Hayes. I feel very strongly about our Sign Ordinance in Queensbury, particularly when you travel and you see the proliferation of signs that reach up to the sky in many cases, particularly along highways, and I’m appreciative of the fact that we have this very tough Sign Ordinance. I basically agree with Jaime Hayes. The wall signs aren’t a problem. I mean, considering some of the other things that we see auto alley in this Town, they’re very tasteful and they’re very well done. The fact that the applicant has shown a willingness to reduce the sign height to our standard makes me feel very good. The second sign, in a perfect world I would say no, but I think the property is wide enough. I think the signs are tasteful enough, not that we get into design. We only get into size, but what has been presented is very tasteful signage, and while I would prefer that we didn’t have to have two, I think in this particular case, I would go along with the applicant and be willing to approve this application as modified with the two freestanding signs of 33 and 50, and the three smaller wall signs, no signs to be on the Lafayette side. I’m comfortable with that. So having said that, looking at the votes that I’ve tabulated, I would like a motion to approve the modified application. MR. MC NULTY-Unlisted Action. You need a SEQRA. MR. STONE-You’re right. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: Duly adopted this 28 day of May, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 43-2003 NORTHEAST AMERICAN REALTY, LLC, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 92 Quaker Road. The applicant proposes construction of three wall signs and two freestanding signs for a Saturn Dealership. Specifically, the relief that’s requested, the applicant requests relief for two additional wall signs to be displayed on the Quaker Road façade of the building, as well as relief for an additional freestanding sign per Section 140-6B3. Does the benefit to the applicant outweigh the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and community by granting the Area Variance in this particular case? Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties if this variance is granted? I don’t believe that it will. I believe that, based on the overall development of the lot, to reduce the amount of signage that’s associated with the total signage and thirdly the fact that the signs that exist, that are portrayed to us in the application, are relatively benign, in that the blend into the plan and the landscape of the building. Could the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved through some method as a feasible alternative? I believe that the applicant has presented us with logical reasons why the necessity for the second freestanding sign, that they have a used car business and this is an important aspect of their business and it has to be identified. I’m not sure the feasible alternatives actually include a larger single sign, in this particular case. I think that that is a less desirable, from our perspective, than the one that’s proposed, in this particular case. Is the relief requested substantial? I would say that it’s moderate. Certainly five signs from the three that are allowed is not minimal, but again, based on the overall signage and the nature of the signage, I think that it’s a moderate request, the amount of relief being requested is moderate. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. I don’t think that it will. Certainly, Quaker Road in general, with other car dealerships on that road and street, the addition of this site and the signage that’s in front of us is not going to change the nature or the use of that area in Quaker Road. Certainly the signs in particular I do not feel will have that effect. Is the difficulty self-created? Certainly the fact that the applicant desires additional signage is a self-created condition, but I think a reasonable condition that he wanted to remedy, so I would say yes, factually, but in effect, no. Based on that, I’d like to also state, as part of the approval motion, that the granting of the signs, the additional signs, will be limited to the exact square footage that’s depicted in the applicant’s application. It’s not our intention to give you two full sized freestanding signs. It’s 33 square feet and 50 square feet. No signs on Lafayette. The location of the first freestanding sign, which is the larger freestanding sign, at 50 square feet, is depicted in the applicant’s submissions as the second sign. Factually it’s the first and larger sign, which is for the regular Saturn Dealership sign. The second freestanding sign, which is essentially the cause for the relief, will be located west of the northeast corner of the plot and site plan, the pad, depicted as display pad, and will be, the applicant is not requesting any setback relief. The small directional signs for express service, etc. will not appear on Lafayette Street. Duly adopted 28 day of May, 2003, by the following vote: th 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) MR. STONE-Down below is a County right of way. Does the County right of way come into this thing at all? We haven’t mentioned it. MR. LAPPER-You mean the County sewer line? MR. STONE-Not the sewer line. If you go down, east of Bay, where we have that swale that is actually County property, on the south side. MR. LAPPER-Our survey shows the property line. MR. STONE-Okay. AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. LAPPER-Thank you. We’re going to go back to the agenda, if we may. Mr. Karanikas, would you come forward? We read your application into the record. So, would you identify yourself and anything that you want to add, on behalf of your application, be our guest. Area Variance No. 41-2003 Terry Karanikas TERRY KARANIKAS MR. KARANIKAS-My name is Terry Karanikas. I own the property on Country Club Road that I’m looking for relief, I guess. I guess the, I have two school zones that are on the same piece of property that I can’t get consolidated, so I have to ask for the frontage. They are surveyed as one, but there’s two school zones, but there are two school zones. So I can’t consolidate them, and I think I gave a letter with it showing that. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. KARANIKAS-I guess it’s an act of Congress to get it changed, and they’re not willing to give it up. MR. STONE-Well, particularly at times when budgets are tight. I guess this makes it very difficult. Schools don’t want to give up any revenue. You own these two parcels. I know you wanted to combine them. What do you see happening to these two parcels over time? MR. KARANIKAS-I guess I’m building a 1400 foot road to get to the back lot to build on the property that is buildable. MR. STONE-The front lot I’m thinking of. I know the back lot you’re going to put the house on. MR. KARANIKAS-Right. Yes. MR. STONE-What about the house with the road on it? Do you see development of that lot? MR. KARANIKAS-On the front part of it? MR. STONE-Yes. MR. KARANIKAS-I haven’t really considered it right now, because what I’ve got to do in the back is probably going to cost me a lot more than I can afford to do in the front anyway, but I’m still working on that with my wife, as far as the back one. Do I see anything, is there some 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) buildable lots there? I’m sure there is, but I’m kind of like a private person, and if you’ve seen the size of the house, you can see why we’re kind of moving back to the back of it. MR. STONE-Okay. It isn’t, I don’t think it is something that we could say to you in our motion, if we agreed, that you can’t build on it. MR. KARANIKAS-No, I understand that. MR. STONE-I just wanted to hear if you would offer anything. MR. KARANIKAS-Yes. I don’t have any plans right now to do anything with the front or, I know I’d have to come through this again to do something, which I believe the person that owned it before might have had some other ideas of doing that, but right now I can say no. MR. STONE-Questions, gentlemen? MR. URRICO-I have a question of Staff. Because this is on an arterial road, does it require twice the road frontage? MR. BROWN-No. We’re talking about existing lots here. We’re not creating any lots where you’d require any new lot widths. So, no, these are existing lots. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. STONE-But this back lot was created knowing that there was no access to it? MR. BROWN-Apparently so, yes. I don’t know the history of it. MR. HAYES-Craig, I have one question which is actually just technical. That road kind of goes through a lot of wetlands there. I was wondering, is that okay? MR. BROWN-Well, the Town Ordinance has an exception for private driveways, up to a 15 foot wide maximum, to cross through a wetland for personal, private. MR. HAYES-So that doesn’t go to the tenth of an acre thing there? MR. BROWN-Well, it may, but that’s not one of the Town’s regulations. That could be a Corps or a DEC requirement that they have to fulfill, but this meets the Town requirements. MR. STONE-So that at some point he has to get clearance from? MR. BROWN-He may have to. MR. STONE-May have to. Yes. MR. BROWN-But I think, I mean, obviously the DEC has been out there. MR. KARANIKAS-Yes, I’ve had it delineated. MR. BROWN-And delineated it. So they’re definitely aware of it. MR. KARANIKAS-And I’ve done a permit for what I’m going to do, and I’m working out with them as far as whatever they expect of me as far as to keep the waterways or whatever is out there that’s, you know, pertinent to them, as far as the flow or the wetlands. MR. HAYES-Well, if it’s not a Town issue, that’s fine. MR. STONE-Yes, right. Any other questions? 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) MR. MC NULTY-I’ve got one, kind of not related, but out of curiosity. You own both these lots now? MR. KARANIKAS-Yes. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. MR. KARANIKAS-I bought them as one. MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Well, what I’m chasing is the sign. if I’m not mistaken, Craig, that would qualify as a real estate sign, the one out front that says SOLD on it and under it it says For Sale, and if so, it originally was out of compliance because it’s out of compliance because it’s more than six feet. MR. BROWN-I’m sure Mr. Karanikas will remove it tomorrow. MR. MC NULTY-Yes, and real estates are supposed to be taken down within three days after the place is sold, which, of course it’s not your sign, it’s the previous owners’ sign. MR. KARANIKAS-Yes. MR. MC NULTY-But it would improve the appearance, too, I think, I’ve had some comments from people that have seen that sign long enough. MR. KARANIKAS-Yes, no, that was kind of a statement from my wife. The guy that sold us the property kind of reneged on the contract and we had all these people going to buy it, and so she went out there and let it be known, but we can take it down. MR. STONE-So if you had gotten a sign permit then we couldn’t have said anything. You do know that there was a hole on that property for the longest time, a foundation type hole, and eventually the Town requested that it be filled in, because it was an attractive nuisance. MR. KARANIKAS-Really. Was there a foundation there? MR. STONE-It wasn’t a foundation. It was a hole for a foundation. MR. KARANIKAS-The guy was digging a hole. MR. STONE-Yes. It sat there for a couple of years. Okay. Anything else? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAULA NORTON MRS. NORTON-Paula Norton, 41 Country Club Road, and I have spoken with Terry in regards to building. I have no problem with it. MR. STONE-Thank you. MRS. NORTON-And that hole was there for many years, filled with water, because we did raise some questions about that ourselves. MR. STONE-Okay. Good. Anybody else wishing to speak in favor of? Anybody opposed? Opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) MR. STONE-Well, then I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any other questions anybody wants to make? Well, let’s talk about it, then. Let’s see. Let’s start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Yes. It seems like we’ve granted this relief many times before, and I don’t see a reason not to do it this time. He wants access to a back lot. That seems reasonable to me, and I’d be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-I agree with Roy, certainly in this particular circumstance, it’s difficult to imagine that we would punish the applicant for a State law he has to obey. He can’t combine these two parcels based on that school zone district. I don’t think we should make that your, you know, a consequence that you have to deal with completely. So I’m in favor. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-I’ll agree. Certainly this is an easier one that most of the ones that we have granted for less than 40 feet on a Town road, because it’s not an easement. It’s a piece of property owned by the applicant, and the applicant’s made a good faith effort to combine the two parcels and avoid having to ask for a variance. So I can see no reason to deny it. So I’m definitely in favor. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I’m in favor of the application and in agreement with my fellow Board members. I have nothing further to add. Thank you. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Yes. I put a little note on here before tonight’s meeting and I said it looks like, through no fault of his own, he’s between a stone and a bureaucratic hard rock. So, basically, I don’t think you should be punished for something like that, and quite frankly your request is reasonable. I would support it. MR. KARANIKAS-I take it you know I work with rocks. MR. ABBATE-Yes. MR. STONE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I, too, would be in favor of it. I don’t see any reason not to grant it. MR. STONE-Yes. These are easy. This is, as you have stated both publicly here, and in your application, you thought they were combined, and they weren’t, and you just wanted to put an access out to your, where you want to build. So, I need a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2003 TERRY KARANIKAS, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Country Club Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 10,625 square foot single family dwelling on a parcel without frontage on a Town road and proposes to access the parcel from the applicant’s adjoining parcel, which exceeds the minimum frontage requirements. Relief required. The applicant requests 40 feet of relief from the 40 foot minimum road frontage 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) requirements per 179-4-090. Is this application going to cause any problems to the neighborhood or community if approved, no. I see no negative impact from any respect. The benefit to the applicant, of course, is that he will be able to access the lot on which he wants to build a residence, and there is no loss to the community to outweigh this benefit at all that we can see. Is the variance substantial relative to the Ordinance? Yes. We could say that it is, but not again, of any negative impact as we have approved many of these similarly in the past. The aspect of self-created is, I don’t think, applicable here, in that it is a technical problem in connection with a matter that the properties couldn’t be joined because of some Glens Falls and Queensbury School Districts problems that cross through these lots and they would not agree to one or the other giving up their rights to income from the properties. So, on that basis, I move that we approve the application as submitted. Duly adopted this 28 day of May, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-There you go, sir. MR. KARANIKAS-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2003 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED NORTH STAR DONUT GROUP AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ., GARRY ROBINSON, PE OWNER: NORTH STAR DONUT GROUP ZONING: HC-INT. LOCATION: 713 GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING DUNKIN DONUTS BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,244 SQ. FT. DUNKIN DONUTS BUILDING. APPLICANT REQUESTS RELIEF FROM THE PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 10-2003; AV 98-2002 TAX MAP NO. 302.06-1-10 LOT SIZE: 0.44 ACRES ORDINANCE: 179-4-030 JON LAPPER & TOM BURKE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 42-2003, North Star Donut Group, Meeting Date: May 28, 2003 “Project Location: 713 Glen Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2244 sq. ft. Dunkin Donuts in place of the existing 1480 sq. ft. Dunkin Donuts building. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief to reconstruct the site with a total impermeable area of 91.4%. ( 91.6% incorrect in application; 2244 + 15411 = 17655 ) The maximum allowable impermeable per the Highway Commercial Intensive zone is 70 % per §179-4-030. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 98-2002 resolved 12/18/02 Travel Corridor and Shoreline setback relief for the construction of a 2244 sq. ft. Dunkin Donuts. SP 10-2003 pending 2244 sq. ft. Dunkin Donuts. Staff comments: Staff, mistakenly, did not identify this requested relief during the review of the previous Area Variance application. Consideration might be given to the existing 95.9% versus the proposed 91.4%. ? Are there areas where the permeable surfaces can be further increased on site?” MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form May 14, 2003 Project Name: North Star Donut Group Owner: North Star Donut Group ID Number: QBY-03-AV-42 County Project#: May03-36 Current Zoning: HC-Int. Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes demolition of the existing Dunkin Donuts building and construction of a 2,244 sq. ft. Dunkin Donuts building. Applicant requests relief from the permeability requirements. 30% is required; 8.4% is proposed. Site Location: 713 Glen Street Tax Map Number(s): 302.06-1-10 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) remove an existing 1,480 sq. ft. Dunkin Donuts building to rebuild a 2,244 sq. ft. Dunkin Donuts building with a drive thru. The applicant requests a variance for permeability requirements. The applicant proposes 8.4% where 30% is required 4.1% is existing. The County Planning Board approved variances for this project at the December 2002 meeting, where permeability was identified at the County level. Staff recognizes the improvements to the site to be an enhancement to Route 9. Staff recommends approval. County Planning Board Recommendation: Approve The Warren County Planning Board recommends approval recognizing the improvements to the site to be an enhancement to Route 9.” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, 5/19/03” MR. STONE-Mr. Lapper? MR. LAPPER-Thank you. For the record, Jon Lapper with Tom Burke. Tom and his brother Jerry are the franchisees for all of the Dunkin Donuts in the area. I think you have 14 now. Something like that. The Burkes inherited the site. This was obviously something that was developed a long time ago before there was zoning, and they have a project pending with the Planning Board that is a major attempt to upgrade this. They were before you before I got involved representing them, and they would have, if they knew that they needed this variance, they would have asked for it at once. That was for the 75 foot setback from the Travel Corridor and the setback from this little stream in the back that’s really a drainage ditch that runs into Route 9, and the Board granted that. I have your resolution from December 18. In the Staff th comments it was pointed out that the permeable area for the site will increase by four and a half percent. So it wasn’t a surprise, this was always part of the application. It just wasn’t determined that a variance was needed at the time because it was a grandfathered situation and it was going from the four percent to the eight percent. So it was an increase, but when we were at the Planning Board hashing out the details of the site plan, this was raised , and it was determined by the Zoning Administrator that we should come back, so here we are. When you talk about green space, I mean, there’s the visual issue, and there’s the permeability for stormwater, and a large part of this project is to improve the stormwater aspects of the site. Right now, everything sheet flows above ground, onto Route 9, which isn’t a good situation because you’ve got cars driving 55 plus on Route 9, and it has to travel a couple of hundred feet to the nearest catch basin on Route 9. So the water, all of the front of the site sheet flows onto Route 9, goes along the curb, and then goes into a catch basin. What we’re doing now is to, a slight amount of infiltration because there’s not a lot with the soils there, but there would be some infiltration into a catch basin on the site, and then it would go underground and hook up into the storm sewer in Route 9 underground. So it’s, the stormwater issue, there’s some amount of treatment that some of it will be infiltrated. For the most part, it’ll still go into the County storm system, but it’ll go underground. So it’s not a traffic hazard issue, because it’s not going onto the roadway where people are driving at full speed. In the back, we were able to improve the green space that’s there. The back end of the site is now going to drain into a green space area that’s behind the little parking lot for employees in the back, where it would be treated somewhat before it goes into that little stream that catches all of the stormwater for the area. So they didn’t have a lot to work with. It was, you know, a pretty much almost totally impervious site to begin with. We’re doubling the green space to eight percent. The site looks horrible right now. The operation of the building is horrible. It’s dirty. It’s a mess. In terms of traffic, the fact that they’re going to add the drive through is one of the most important aspects to them, because a lot of people are just going to quickly come in, get a coffee and a donut and leave. So they would require less parking than they have now. That’s what they’ve done on the Main Street site on the other side of Town, which has worked very well because of the drive through. It just splits up the traffic. It’s a tough site. It’s a small site with an ugly building, and it’s going to be a lot better after they’re done. The Planning Board, especially Mr. Strough who’s here tonight, was unimpressed with the standard prototype of the building, and they’ve designed something specific for Queensbury. So if you think of the, visualize the site on Main Street it has the striped awnings. This is just going to have the burgundy color rather than the orange and the burgundy. The site itself now is going to be neutral tones, split block. The other site has some metal panels at the bottom. This is all going to be split block at the bottom. It’s a much more upgraded design from what they started out with, which is the prototype. In terms of site lighting, that’s all going to comply with the Town Code, the 20 foot cut off lights. They’re 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) eliminating the first parking space, when you turn in, because the Town and DOT noted that a car that was backing out would be backing out into that drive aisle. So now that space is not going to be a parking space. It’s going to be curbed, part of the curbed island along Route 9. In terms of permeability, that curbed island is primarily in the DOT right of way anyway, but it wouldn’t make sense to try and grass that, to the extent that it’s on the site, because just the snow storage on Route 9, that thing just gets plowed with these massive trucks, and to put a small strip of green isn’t going to do anything. It’s not going to be able to be maintained, but we just look at it as an improvement from what’s there, in terms of the eight percent, and the Board was favorable to the application last time, and just to quote from your resolution, it would probably be positive having the new store being built there. Is the difficulty self-created, the difficulty is basically attributed to the size and shape of the pre-existing, nonconforming parcel, and it should be noted that almost all the setbacks are going to be better than they are at the present time, and that’s the case with the green space as well. We do have a situation with the neighbor in the back. I’m sure you’re all familiar with that. You’ve got the U Rent-All site that has a long time easement that their access, they have to drive through the site to get to their site, which isn’t great for visibility, but that’s just the way it is. The owner of that site, who I know is here tonight, also owns that blue building next door that has a bunch of tenants in it. So, I mean, there is a possibility in the future that if they wanted to upgrade their site in the back, maybe they could take down the site next door and do a comprehensive project, and then they wouldn’t need to use this access, but as it stands now, this is going to improve the site for them as well, because the site will just be more efficient with people using the drive through rather than everyone having to park and go inside. So, that’s our story. We’re sorry that we didn’t do this the first time, a few months ago, and not have to come back, but here we are. MR. STONE-Just, well, a personal comment. I wasn’t here in December, and I just want to read something out of the Zoning Code, just so, I’m sure it was addressed and I’m certain the Planning Board is addressing it, but 179-7-050 titled Route 9 Corridor, B, currently the lower Route 9 corridor is characterized by an overabundance of asphalt….. An overabundance of asphalt, and this is the epitome of an overabundance of asphalt when you go on this site. I just throw that out. I’m sure the Planning Board is obviously considering all of these things because you’re aware, certainly, Mr. Lapper, and Mr. Burke probably, that we did a lot of work on this zoning code in trying to figure out, how can we make, particularly the Lower Route 9 corridor, a more attractive place to represent Queensbury. I mean, I can go on. It talks about a lot of problems, but since we’re talking about permeability, is there any possibility of having some kind of buffer between Auto Zone and this property with green space of some sort? MR. LAPPER-Not on this site. This is just such a small site, that there is literally, the Planning Board measured this out, just enough room to have cars parking on the diagonal, a truck offloading, because that’s the only place that a tractor trailer can park, and then having cars with a pass-by lane. There’s just nothing else to work with on this site. We looked at all the possibilities exhaustively, you know, but in terms of that Lower Route 9 provision in the Code, if they didn’t have the permission to renovate the site, it would just stay there. They would eventually leave the site, and there’s a. MR. STONE-Don’t threaten. MR. LAPPER-No, no. I’m just saying that because there’s not that much to work with. MR. STONE-I understand that. MR. LAPPER-They couldn’t justify the investment in totally renovating and building a new building. In the future, it’s not likely that anybody else would be able to do anything unless they got a variance either. The site is just such a tight site. MR. URRICO-You mentioned the tractor trailer coming through there. Are those supplies? MR. LAPPER-Yes. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) MR. URRICO-Are donuts being made there? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. URRICO-Or are they being shipped in from other? MR. LAPPER-Some things are made there. The donuts are not. MR. BURKE-The issue of the tractor trailer speaks to the once a week delivery that we accept from our delivery center in New Jersey. Donuts are not delivered in a tractor trailer. MR. URRICO-Okay. How are they delivered? MR. BURKE-In a van, and many of the bakery products will be made on site. MR. URRICO-How often will that van be offloading? MR. BURKE-Twice a day. Typically at non-peak hours because we need to be ready for the morning rush. MR. STONE-So as a customer of Dunkin Donuts, I can’t assume that the donut I buy is made on site? MR. BURKE-Not at that location. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BURKE-At some, you can. Well, about 10 years ago the company embarked on a plan to centralize and mechanize its manufacturing operations. It’s much more cost effective and you get a much higher quality uniform product when you manufacture under a certain set of standards and guidelines in a facility that’s built for just that purpose. We will continue, however, to make muffins, bagels, scones, and croissants an items, bakery items, at the shop, but the actual donut product will be brought in. MR. STONE-Is this something that you, as the franchisee, have to have your own commissary type, or is there? MR. BURKE-I’m happy to tell you that we’re the first in the Capital Region to, and as far as I know, it’s still the only to have a commissary kitchen that can supply the number of stores that we have. Yes. MR. HAYES-It’s in Malta? MR. BURKE-Yes, that’s correct. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. URRICO-During peak times, how many cars do you anticipate going through the drive thru? MR. BURKE-I actually didn’t bring that information with me tonight. I don’t know if perhaps Jon has it. MR. URRICO-I was just curious. I don’t know. MR. LAPPER-We did all those calculations for the Planning Board, and I think the number was nine, if I remember, because we did the stacking to make sure that it wouldn’t block the first parking space in front of the store. We brought in traffic counts from existing stores of 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) comparable volume, and we had counts done. So we’ve been dealing with all that with the Planning Board, but we don’t anticipate a problem. MR. STONE-Any other questions, gentlemen? All right. Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application, in favor of? Anybody opposed to this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JOHN DOTY MR. DOTY-My name’s John Doty. My wife and I own the adjacent properties. I’ve heard a couple of things here tonight that I do have some questions about. We had a question about a semi trailer coming in once a week, that’s correct, for Dunkin Donuts, but it’s not correct or U Rent-All or people with trailers coming in to U Rent-All for deliveries and pick-up. There have been no allowances for this. In fact, the allowance has been, well, they can wait until the line clears, and then they can get into Dunkin Donuts. That was a comment. You can check the Planning Board minutes. I believe that this should not be approved. They are talking about permeability areas. One of the areas of permeability that they’re including is a structure on my deeded right of way. I think Mr. Lapper knows that constructions on right of ways are not permitted. I realize that you folks are not in the business of enforcing deeds. However, this is something, however, you might consider because, you know, part of what they are applying for is probably going to result in litigation, because they’ve failed to respond to any of my correspondence. MR. STONE-Which building is yours, Mr. Doty? MR. DOTY-I own both the U Rent-All and the blue building next door. I own both of those properties. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. DOTY-They are separate properties. So the right of way on one does not effect the other in any way. MR. STONE-Now, is the U haul on the Dunkin Donuts property? MR. DOTY-U haul? MR. STONE-I’m sorry, U Rent-All. MR. DOTY-Is on U Rent-All’s property. MR. STONE-It’s your? Okay. MR. DOTY-One of my properties in that area. I think this difficulty is self-created. They’re trying to put 10 pounds in a 5 pound bag. A smaller store, more green space would work. So I do think they’ve created their own difficulty. I understand they have some economic driving forces, so they insist on, they have to have a bigger store, but they have, I have mentioned trucks and trailers and cars and stuff coming in. The studies that have been mentioned here today were made at other stores, or at least that’s what they reported to the Planning Board last Planning Board meeting that we were at. Not at Glen Street. They do not reflect the other traffic coming in. Unless they’ve done something new. Now, of course they haven’t talked to me about it. So I have no idea. As I say, I recommend you disapprove this application. MR. STONE-Can you, for my edification. I don’t know about the rest of the Board, can you go up, take the mic, and show me what the right of way is that we’re talking about. So that. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) MR. DOTY-Yes, sir. It’s 25 feet on this side of the property. They are proposing to put a green area and curbing in this area in here, on the northwest corner. MR. STONE-And the U Rent-All? MR. DOTY-U Rent-All is right here. MR. STONE-That’s that building. Okay. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-While you’re up there, sir, would you be kind enough to do me a favor? Could you point out, or explain in more detail, the adverse impact that this proposal would have on your property, specific adverse impact. MR. DOTY-Currently, this choke point here is already a choke point. We don’t have another lane of cars sitting in here. Anytime anybody stops in this area, Dunkin Donuts delivery trucks, UPS, the total area is blocked. So now we’re going to put, even though they’re moving the building ahead a little further, we’re putting a round area in here, and there will not be traffic where a truck could get through. I don’t know whether you could get a pick up through, but probably not a pick up with a trailer, definitely not a semi-trailer through there. MR. ABBATE-And that yellow area, is that the property belonging to Dunkin Donuts? MR. DOTY-This area here. MR. ABBATE-The yellow area? MR. DOTY-The yellow area, yes, sir. MR. ABBATE-Is the property of Dunkin Donuts? MR. DOTY-Yes, sir. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. MR. STONE-Thank you. Any other questions of Mr. Doty? Okay. Thank you. Is that it? MR. DOTY-Yes, sir. MR. STONE-Okay. Anybody else wishing to speak opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. MR. STONE-All right. Let me close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Did you gentlemen wish to make a rebuttal? MR. LAPPER-Not very much. Their situation is something that’s been existing. Their access, they’re behind the building in front, and that’s just a fact. The tractor trailer delivery that we talked about is exactly what’s operating now. We’ve checked the turning radiuses of the, it’ll be better because the building will be moved slightly forward. Right now, in order to exit the site, it all goes one direction anyway. So you go around the back of the building. We think that this’ll get cars on and off the site faster. The Planning Board has been supportive of that because of the drive thru. I just want to point out something. The neighbor’s property, this is the U Rent-All in the back. He also owns this piece, with these two buildings, and if anything, if you want to talk about 10 pounds in a 5 pound bag, and I don’t want to be argumentative, but they’ve got people parking right in front and backing out onto Route 9, the tenants, I think 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) they’ve got two or three tenants in here, or two tenants here, and a tenant here, and this is just a lot of stuff, and this site hopefully it’ll get purchased or re-developed that you could do a lot more with that site to make it less congested, just by working with the site that he has, but certainly the Dunkin Donuts site will function better after this is done, and most of what he talked about are site plan issues for the Planning Board anyway. We’re here talking about permeability. MR. STONE-Of course, but how much wider is the building, the new building, going to be, compared to? MR. LAPPER-We are maintaining a, they have a 25 foot deeded easement, and we are going to maintain, honor that 25 feet. MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? MR. HIMES-Just one matter brought up about the green space that you’re planning on the northeast corner that Mr. Doty said was in the right of way and I think I heard something mentioned in connection with legal action taken about that. Although I don’t know that that has any impact on what we’re considering tonight. MR. LAPPER-I don’t think it does, but let me just explain. Their easement also gives them a sign. So right on the side of that front building, of their front building, there is a sign that’s on our survey as a box. All we’re doing is taking the area where the sign is and putting a green space area on the side. What that does is that it prevents cars, there’s the sign. There’s that U Rent-All sign. So if you see there’s that concrete block at the bottom. We’re putting grass in front of that, and what that does, and DOT wanted it, that prevents cars from traveling between the two sites which right there, because it’s so close to Route 9, is really dangerous. We have one drive aisle and to have people like their site coming on to here to back out, to get out of their site is dangerous. So we were asked to put a curbed green space area in there to make this site safer, so that there wouldn’t be traffic conflicts, but in terms of, we’re not cutting anything off because you can’t drive through that concrete sign, the holder anyway. MR. ABBATE-This modification, is it on your property? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. ABBATE-Okay, and I have, there was some sort of an allegation, and I didn’t quite pick it up, about the data being submitted didn’t reflect on the current location. Could you clear that up for me, please? MR. BURKE-Unfortunately, I believe that to be a misstatement. I don’t know whether that’s intentional or unintentional, but what we did for the benefit of the Planning Board was take data from this site and compare and contrast it with additional data from other sites. Thank you. MR. ABBATE-Okay. I see. Now, one other final question, then I’ll keep quiet. In the event that this Area Variance is granted, will any changes or modifications be made other than on your property? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. STONE-Anything else anybody wants to say? Okay. Let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Jaime. MR. HAYES-Well, we have reviewed this application before, and I know that there’s a tendency to develop an inferiority complex with the Planning Board on our part, but I think that I’m 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) going to couch my comments in re-addressing the fact that this is a permeability variance, and that Mr. Doty’s comments are certainly understandable and his concerns are certainly valid, but we have to allow the Planning Board to do the radiuses and do all those studies and accept that data and do their thing on that. So I think they will. They have, in this case, so I’d like to kind of just focus my remarks on the permeability. I certainly would agree with Lew that we’ve got kind of an express mandate to try and improve the Lower Glen Street area there, because it really is an exceptional amount of pavement and the Town’s got a vested interest in improving that, but sometimes the sins of the father becomes problems that aren’t necessarily a solution is available to. In this particular case, trying to grab some extra green space, which is obvious, an obvious answer here to some extent, ruins the flow of the site that’s been developed by the Planning Board or the applicant, and I think that, you know, they may be not in the best interest of what we’re trying to accomplish. I think that we want to try and get applicants to increase the green space, but as I view this site, and I am a customer of Dunkin Donuts myself, off the record, but I think that it would be really almost impossible to grab a significant amount of green space, to the point of where I think it would have a meaningful effect on the permeability and the stormwater management of this site. The applicant has presented to us that they’ve got a plan to stop the sheathing of the water in and around the entrances, which, historically, has been a big issue there. I can remember many times being like small little ponds there. So I think that, based on substantial review, that steps have been made to, while not a great permeability percentage, steps have been made to help with stormwater management and the other things that are behind, somewhere behind permeability, other than the obvious aesthetic effects. So I’m satisfied that what’s been done on this site has been done. I really don’t think that there are feasible alternatives that are meaningful, as far as grabbing green space that are really possible here, so, while I would like to see more green space, I’m in favor of the application, and I’m certainly sympathetic with Mr. Doty, and I think his taking those things up with the Planning Board is within his right of what he should do. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I basically agree with Jaime. I think, as the applicant’s indicated, they’re making an attempt to control stormwater, which is of course one of the reasons for permeability, and I think probably the only practical way to really increase the permeability is to say tear down the place and tear up the black top and plant grass. I think by the time you brought this site into compliance, you would be so confined that you could probably put next to nothing in there and have it be workable. So, from looking at the fact that we are improving the site, it’s a nonconforming site. Certainly if it was a brand new proposal, we would not approve it, but it’s an existing site that’s been there for a number of years, and I think we’ve covered most of the issues before, when we granted the other variance, basis of permeability. At least we’re getting a slight gain, and I’ll be in favor. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I agree with what Jaime and Chuck have said, and I, too, I think I would be in support of approving the application, and I think that, even though it’s slight, there has been an improvement accomplished here which I would have expected it would have been just the opposite. The bigger building and everything else, and yet they’ve managed to squeeze out three or four percent more permeability. So, in short, again, I vote we approve the application. I’m in favor of it. Thank you. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I basically agree with what Jaime and Norm have said. There’s no doubt in my mind that this will be a vast improvement, Number One, and if we are to take a realistic approach to the problem, as it is, I’ve heard nothing this evening that would indicate to me that if we approve this application it would physically disturb or even intrude on any kind of neighboring property, and Jaime was right. This was heard once before, and I think at times we have to yield to the wisdom of the Planning Board, and based on the information presented by the applicant this evening, I would support the application. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) MR. STONE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I, too, would be in agreement with everybody else so far. I think that we, you know, the Planning Board spent considerable effort trying to deal with this very small site, it’s less than half an acre in size, and I think everyone was in agreement that it will be a positive to have, you know, this continue on as was originally intended. As far as the neighbor to the back, I would think that if it does end up being a real problem with the drive thru, that that’s something that could be monitored and, you know, if, in effect, it does cut him off for considerable amounts of time that that’s something you guys might want to come back and re- visit, but I would assume, for now, that we can approve this. MR. STONE-Roy? MR. URRICO-When you start out with an asphalt, and you take away four and a half percent, it may not seem like a lot, but it really is. In looking at the criteria, I see that this would improve the neighborhood in some respect. It’s minimal, but I think given the circumstances it’s something. The benefit, whether there are feasible alternatives, I think the only thing that would be a feasible alternative, if you dug up half the parking lot and planted grass. Then nobody would have a place to park. The request Area Variance is substantial compared to the Ordinance, but again, it’s an improvement, and it’s a pre-existing condition that you’re trying to improve on. As far as adverse effect or impact on the neighborhood in the environmental condition, I think the fact that you’re putting in a better runoff system will mitigate the lack of permeable area to a large extent, and I hope it does work out that way, because I think that would be a help, and the difficulty is, I don’t think it’s self-created. I think you inherited it, and I think this whole situation was not self-created. So I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-I, too, feel the same way. I think Mr. Urrico has done the necessary going through the qualifications or the questions that we have to answer. Obviously, the Planning Board is as aware of the Zoning Code as we are, and they’re trying to do the best they can, and all of us are, and maybe it can only be four percent at a time, but I think we have to try and make things a little better. So I certainly would vote to approve it. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THE PROJECT, OBVIOUSLY THE PROJECT HAS NEGATIVE IMPACTS, BUT NOTHING ADDITIONAL. IN FACT, IT WILL BE SLIGHTLY BETTER AS NOTED BY MR. URRICO, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Duly adopted this 28 day of May, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-Now, I need a motion to approve the application. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2003 NORTH STAR DONUT GROUP, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: 713 Glen Street. The applicant proposes construction of a 2,244 square foot Dunkin Donuts in place of the existing 1480 square foot Dunkin Donuts building. In doing so, the applicant requests relief to reconstruct the site with a total impermeable area of 91.4%. The maximum allowable impermeable per the Highway Commercial Intensive zone is 70% per 179-40-030. In going through the criteria, it is felt that the change in the neighborhood would be a beneficial 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) change because of the increased permeability, although slight, is representative of something that’s better than it was before. The benefit sought by the applicant seems unreasonable to expect them to achieve it in a feasible manner other than what they’re suggesting or proposing, other than a massive change to the site. The requested Area Variance is substantial compared to the Zoning Ordinance, but I’d like to point out that it’s 4.5% improvement on the previous permeability status of that business and location, and the proposed Area Variance, in terms of environmental or physical conditions to the neighborhood or district, would also be an improvement. They are mitigating the lack of permeable space with what seems to be a better runoff system than what was there before, and the situation was inherited from a previous owner, and I think they’ve improved upon it. Duly adopted this 28 day of May, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. BURKE-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-2003 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED SCHERMERHORN RES. HOLDINGS, INC. AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER: GUIDO PASSARELLI ZONING: PO LOCATION: MEADOWBROOK ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 128 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX WITH ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES FOR TENANTS AND THEIR GUESTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MAXIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: BAYBROOK PROFESSIONAL PARK, LOT 10 MODIF. SUBD. NO. 9-2000 TAX MAP NO. 296.12-1-24 LOT SIZE: 39.64 ACRES (LOT 10) SECTION: 179-4-040 JON LAPPER & TOM NACE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RICH S., PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 44-2003, Schermerhorn Res. Holdings, Inc., Meeting Date: May 28, 2003 “Project Location: Meadowbrook Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an additional 55 parking spaces. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief for the additional 55 parking spaces. The parking requirement for development within the Professional Office, (PO) zone requires 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit. Additionally, the Planning Board can and has in this instance, pursuant to §179-4- 040,B(10), approved an additional 38 spaces which equates to an additional 20%. This request is for an additional 55 spaces on top of the 20% increase. Total spaces proposed: 285. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): Lot 10, Baybrook Professional Park – Subdivision 9-2000, modification. SP 15-2003 resolved; 3/18/03 128 unit apartment complex. Staff comments: The proposed parking quantities are consistent with previous, similar developments of this nature. The proposal, with the additional parking spaces is well within permeable requirements for this zoning district. Although the additional spaces are not clearly marked on the plot plan, the layout appears to be acceptable and logical. The proposal will need to be re-reviewed by the Planning Board as a modification to the original approval.” MR. MC NULTY-No County. MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper, with Tom Nace, project engineer, and Rich Schermerhorn, on behalf of Rich Schermerhorn. I guess to start with, as the Board is aware, unlike other municipalities, in Queensbury, the parking requirements are not just a minimum 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) but also a maximum. That, historically, was brought about because the K-Mart development, as one example, was considered to, I think they have seven or nine spaces per thousand, where most other commercial projects have five, and that was viewed as the “sea of asphalt”, and as a result the Queensbury Ordinance is unique that there is the maximum number of parking spaces. Ultimately, Rich will explain to you why, in his experience as the owner of many townhouse projects, both in Queensbury and elsewhere, he feels that this is needed just for practical reasons, but just in terms of the way Tom designed this, all of the spaces, as indicated in the application, all of the extra spaces are on the interior of the site, and I’ll ask Tom to show you that on the board, so that it’s not a visual issue for any of the neighbors. It doesn’t affect any of the wetland setback or anything else. It’s all just interior spaces that Rich feels he needs. So, next, I’d like to ask Tom to just walk you through, and then we’ll let Rich explain it to you. MR. NACE-Good evening. Basically, this is the site plan. You can see the parcel is a very large parcel. The site development area is back well off, as Jon explained, well off of Meadowbrook Road. It’s tucked in along a wooded area to the south where it doesn’t have any visibility from the south. There’s quite a buffer to the north, and to the west. As you can see from the parcel way out here, there’s the rest of Rich’s development. Plus, as Jon explained, the parking has been kept on the inside of pods. We’ve set up really four individual pods of apartments. The parking’s been kept interior to those. So it’s even more hidden from the outside. In yellow here I have shown the additional spaces we’re asking for, okay, and as Staff pointed out, there are 55 additional spaces that we are requesting, and Rich can explain the necessity he feels for those spaces. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Hi. Rich Schermerhorn for the record. The general reason for having the extra spaces is most individuals today have two automobiles. I’m not saying that all of my tenants have two automobiles, but the majority, but in most cases we find that complexes of this size, when you have people that typically, you know, when their lease is up after a year you’ll have someone will pull in with a rented U-Haul or Ryder truck, and they typically leave them for a day, maybe two days while they’re unloading, and typically what happens is they tie up three to four spots, because they pull them in sideways, because they’re long, and not so much just that, but when you have, when you calculate the number of units, I have 128 units, and they’re all two bedroom units, and let’s say that 80% of the people do have two cars, which is very realistic, based on my other projects I have, and then if they all, let’s say that maybe 30% of the complex on the weekend has a guest over, or a relative, what we find is that just, we kind of reach that maximum, and what I find is they start parking on the side of the, like my access roads or they, sometimes they park on the grass, which is, I find it disrespectful but they do it anyway. So just out of past experience, this is why I was hoping that we could find it reasonable to grant the spaces, and I think, based on the location, it’s a very wooded parcel. It’s very hard to see from Meadowbrook Road or other spots of Queensbury. So, I don’t think it will have any great visual effect on anybody close by. Thank you. MR. STONE-Just a comment hit me. Well, two things I’d like you to comment on. Again, I don’t want to be the Planning Board, but I’m a human being and I’m a resident of Queensbury, and I heard two big bullfrogs out there when I was looking at the property. What about the wetlands on this property? I know it’s a lot of wetlands, and how is that being handled? MR. SCHERMERHORN-This parcel of land that I purchased, you can see it, first of all, it’s highlighted in yellow, and then heading toward Bay Road, where you can see a cul de sac. That’s an 82 acre parcel which I purchased. That’s where I have the day care and the hospital building and I have several others that are approved. I was over two years, literally two years with Army Corps of Engineers and DEC, just to get to a point where I could come in front of the Planning Board and have subdivision approval. So I spent literally two years getting all the wetlands designated. We didn’t just piecemeal it. It was done as one, total parcel, all 82 acres was delineated by Army Corps and DEC, and we have obtained all appropriate permits for stream crossings. I think we did a little bit of moving some of the wetlands, and when I say a little bit, I think it was less than a quarter of an acre, but everything on that parcel has been approved and is in compliance. 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) MR. STONE-What about the, could someone say, when I see words like “additional”, and “Planning Board approved an additional”, is this a piecemeal situation? MR. LAPPER-We presented it to the Planning Board this way, showing exactly what he wanted, but they only had the ability to grant the 20%, because that’s what the Ordinance said. We actually went as far as to say, could you approve it both ways because they saw it, and so that we won’t have to bother coming back, but they correctly said, or with the Zoning Administrator’s help, that it can’t, they didn’t have the legal authority to approve it any more than 20%. So we did up a new plan to submit for signature that took away these spaces, but this is the plan that we had on the board, and they’re aware of it. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-In terms of the wetland question, also, as Rich said, it’s an 82 acre site, all together, and there’s less than a half acre of wetland disturbance that he ultimately needed a permit for, which is really moving some stuff around, including the driveway into here, that, just because of where the wetland is, that we had to do a slight disturbance, but less than a half acre on 82 acres is pretty good, and we did mitigation with creating new wetlands. MR. STONE-Anybody, comments? MR. URRICO-In creating the additional spaces, was anything done to the size of the spaces that you had proposed originally? Are they any narrower, for instance? MR. NACE-The size of the spaces? MR. URRICO-The size of the particular spaces? MR. NACE-No. MR. URRICO-So they’re standard? MR. NACE-The standard Code of nine feet is really about as narrow as you ever want to go with parking. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Then if I may, I certainly don’t, paving these parking lots is rather expensive, and I certainly wouldn’t ask for the extra parking if I didn’t think it was needed. So, and to answer the question, as far as Lew’s, as far as piecemeal, any of the applications that I’ve brought forward in the past years, I don’t believe I’ve ever been back once for adding anything on, and this wouldn’t be the case where I’d come back to you for more parking. MR. STONE-No, I wasn’t suggesting that, but when I see additional, and then additional. You’ve explained it. Okay. I do have a question, though. You’ve said that you own the property. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. Well, we’re closing in probably less than a month. MR. STONE-Okay. Because I see Mr. Passarelli’s name here. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Yes. MR. LAPPER-Rich has a contract to purchase this, and then we get the approvals and we close after we get the approvals. MR. STONE-Okay. So it’s conditional on approvals. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) MR. SCHERMERHORN-Contracts of sales are conditional on approvals. MR. STONE-Because I was worried about Mr. Passarelli’s reputation that proceeds him, as far as trees go, and I’m concerned about what might happen to this, what few trees there are on this property. MR. SCHERMERHORN-Right. I can’t speak on his behalf, but the Town Planning Board, as always, has done a real thorough job, as far as my landscaping goes. MR. STONE-I’ve had some experience at meetings in Lake George, the current situation. MR. UNDERWOOD-I have a question for Craig. How come it’s PO zone here and it’s residential housing going up? MR. BROWN-It’s multi-family, which is allowable in the PO zone. MR. LAPPER-It used to be called MR-5. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. STONE-Anything else? Any other questions before I open the public hearing? Let me open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak in favor of this application? In favor of? Anybody opposed? Any correspondence? MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NO COMMENT PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. STONE-Any further questions? Hearing none, let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Roy. MR. URRICO-I don’t see a problem with the application. I think having more parking spaces is preferable to having not enough, and I’m confident that everything that’s been placed before us is accurate, and that the additional spaces will be well used, and help to improve the area before it even begins. As far as the test is concerned, I believe you satisfy all the criteria that I’ve seen here, and I would be in favor of it. MR. STONE-Jaime? MR. HAYES-I essentially agree. I certainly don’t think that Mr. Schermerhorn would purposely go back before our Board or back before the Planning Board for that matter, you know, unless he thought it was something that he needed to do and there was a good reason behind it. I mean, it’s, my comments would primarily focus on the fact that, as Staff has correctly pointed out, that the quantities are consistent with previous and similar developments of this nature. I think that we have to rely on some of the Town’s experience with the fact that, in certain circumstances, the rules for minimum and maximum parking are good, but they’re not always exactly what the development calls for, and we should, when given the power, we can certainly grant the additional spaces, as Roy pointed out, when there appears to be a good reason, and I think in this case there probably is. So I’m in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Chuck? MR. ABBATE-I, too, am in favor. I think, as the applicant’s pointed out, I wouldn’t expect him to ask to spend more money on blacktop unless he had a good reason for doing it, or for that 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) matter had bothered to come before this Board unless he had a good reason for doing it. So his arguments make sense, and I think this is what variances are for, and I’ll be in favor. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I don’t see any negative impact in connection with the Town or the community. This, in itself, is a community, and I’m not trying to re-write the Code, but I would think that your moving averages, you have a place that has an occupant with one car, replaced by an occupant with two cars. So how do you spread, and having had some experiences living in places with insufficient, my own feeling is that any dwelling should have capacity for at least two. So the convenience to the public, the residents of this place are going to benefit greatly, I think, from this. So I’m in favor of the application. Thank you. MR. STONE-All right. Mr. Abbate? MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Schermerhorn’s reputation and past history is commendable. Both he and Counselor have done their homework and presented it to the Board, and there is a truism in the Staff notes when they state, the proposed parking quantities are consistent with previous similar developments of this nature, and, based on the information that I’ve heard this evening, Mr. Chairman, I will be in favor of the application. MR. STONE-Mr. Underwood. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I, too, would be in agreement. I think that, you know, given holiday times when people come to visit, like you said, you’re going to have overflow need for parking, and it’s better to have it than not have it. So I’d be in agreement to go along with it. MR. STONE-Obviously, the argument has been a telling argument, and I am certainly in agreement. We have wishes that we wish certain things didn’t happen, but that’s progress, and I think this is an example where you’re going to build a development like this, and we’ve all had an input in it, and I think this is a reasonable request. MOTION THAT A REVIEW OF THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: Duly adopted this 28 day of May, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-I need a motion to approve. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-2003 SCHERMERHORN RES. HOLDINGS, INC., Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate: Meadowbrook Road. The applicant specifically proposes construction of an additional 55 parking spaces. They’re requesting relief for an additional 55 and the parking requirement for a development within the PO zone requires one and a half per dwelling. The Planning Board previously has, in this instance, pursuant to Section 179-4-040, Section B, Subsection 10, approved an additional 38 spaces, which equates to an additional 20%. This request is for an additional 55 spaces on top of that 20% increase. So the total number of spaces proposed would be 285. The proposed parking quantities would be consistent with previous similar 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) developments of this nature, and the proposal with the additional parking spaces is well within the permeable requirements for this zoning district. Although the additional spaces are not clearly marked on the plot plan, the layout appears to be acceptable and logical. The proposal will need to be re-reviewed by the Planning Board as a modification to the original approval. Duly adopted this 28 day of May, 2003, by the following vote: th AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Bryant NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 2-2003 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED PAUL SCHUERLEIN AGENT: JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER: PAUL SCHUERLEIN ZONING: UR-10 LOCATION: 188 DIXON ROAD APPLICANT IS APPEALING A ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DETERMINATION REGARDING THE ADDITION OF A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS TO AN URBAN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. CROSS REFERENCE: UV 77-1997; UV 48-2001 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 5/14/03 TAX MAP NO. 302.09-1-2 LOT SIZE: 0.32 ACRES SECTION: 179-4-020 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. STONE-Before we really get into this thing, I really don’t understand why we’re here. I think the record that was given to us is fairly clear. The two letters written by Mr. Brown, the Zoning Administrator, one in which he made a determination in July of 2000, which was followed up by acquiescence, if you will, by the applicant, in terms of seeking a Use Variance, before this Board, and an application which was later withdrawn, and the second letter by Mr. Brown, the Zoning Administrator, of March 7, 2003, in which he says, this is not a new determination. I am merely reaffirming the determination that was obviously accepted by Mr. Schuerlein three years ago. So I really don’t understand why we’re even considering an appeal. I will give Mr. Lapper a few minutes to talk about it, but I am inclined to ask the Board, basically, to, well, to pass on the Appeal, quite frankly. MR. LAPPER-Okay. I understand that first I have to convince you why we should be here. This is simply a situation where I tried to meet with the Zoning Administrator and convince him softly to view this as a non-substantial change, and hope that I didn’t need to come to the Board. So the first time that, I mean, quite frankly, in terms of the variance, what he was granted in ’97 was for his plumbing and heating business which involves fabrication, storage, his office, no customer retail, and then he goes out to the home and installs the plumbing, and when he didn’t need to use the whole building, he worked out an arrangement for a cabinet maker or a countertop maker to use part of the space in the back under the premise that in terms of what was being done there was exactly the same, that it was fabrication of items that would be installed in a new or renovated house, inventory, office, and all of the work would take place there, and it would be installed off site, and customers wouldn’t come, and there wouldn’t be a showroom. So in terms of that, our argument here is that, although he came to the Board and asked for a Use Variance based upon the pre-existing commercial building, that it could be used for plumbing and heating, that under the Town Code there’s no fundamental change, that if part of the space is used for countertops and part of it for plumbing and heating, it’s essentially the same thing. The reason that I’m forced to make such an argument is because the standard for a Use Variance, if we have to go back and argue for a Use Variance, he successfully proved the hardship before this Board in ’97, but to prove the hardship again, he’d have to say that if he’s only using two-thirds of the space, that he couldn’t justify that economically, and that’s a pretty hard standard to reach, but I don’t think that there’s any fundamental difference under the Queensbury Code, in terms of the two uses, and since he’s allowed to use the whole building for this type of use of fabrication, storage, office, there’s no outdoor storage allowed, and I don’t think that there’s a fundamental difference in the two uses. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) So I first came in to Craig and talked about whether it could be done as a modification, and so in terms of the procedural issue of whether we’re properly before you for an Appeal, the first time we sent a letter, and Stephanie has it, June 28, and we cited some cases that talked about th modification. MR. STONE-What year? MR. LAPPER-2002. MR. STONE-Thank you. MR. LAPPER-And the variance that, the Use Variance that was tabled was in 2001. So that wasn’t during this procedure, and he got started with it, obviously, we weren’t involved. We came in, and in June of 2002 we wrote to Craig, and went and met with him, and asked him to consider whether or not we could do a modification without having established the standards for a Use Variance, and there is some case law that talks about a modification, but it essentially goes to a modification of conditions, and it’s a question of, if the application was for the plumbing and heating business, is that a condition. I mean, there’s no case that addresses that. So he came back and said that he doesn’t see that a modification is appropriate, and rather than trying to create new law on that point, whether or not that’s appropriate, and maybe it would be a winner, but I don’t know that. We amended our request and submitted a letter on September 10, and on September 10 we made the argument that I tried at this late hour to put thth forth a few minutes ago that it’s essentially the same use. So that one, Craig also denied that, but it was that one that we appealed. That’s the September 10 letter that we should have th submitted with this application, and we have copies of the September 10 letter. So I’m saying th that that’s a fundamentally different approach that I asked a different question. It wasn’t about a modification. It was saying that under the Queensbury Code they’re characterized as the same use. MR. STONE-Are you done? I’m going to ask Mr. Brown to comment. MR. LAPPER-For the record, this is my associate, Stephanie Bidder, who I hope you’ll see more of and a little less of me, if things go the right way. MR. BROWN-Mr. Stone, did you have a specific question, or just looking for a comment? MR. STONE-I’m looking for a response to some of the things that Mr. Lapper said, because, I mean, he did introduce some new materials, namely this letter and your communications, if you will. MR. BROWN-Right. I guess maybe if I could answer your first question that you posed, why are they here. An appellant has the right to appear before the Zoning Board, any time they don’t like a determination made by the Zoning Administrator. I don’t have the authority to say, no, you can’t appeal my determination. So, regardless of any time frame, we as Staff, I, as Zoning Administrator, are obligated to present them to you. So you can determine the facts of the case. MR. STONE-Even if it’s beyond the statute, time frame? MR. BROWN-Even if it’s beyond the statute. That’s not my determination that he’s timed out. That’s yours. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-Which I guess leads in to the September 10, 2002 letter. Obviously a lot longer than 60 days has passed since this letter was presented. My most recent letter to them I believe was in July. My most recent response to them was in July, prior to the September letter. I don’t think I responded to the September letter. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) MR. LAPPER-Yes, in March. MR. BROWN-In March. MR. LAPPER-That’s what we appealed. MR. BROWN-Right. So you’re appealing the March letter, which says I said the same thing as I said before, with no new information. MR. LAPPER-Your conclusion was t e same, that in your opinion we needed a Use Variance, but I think that that was a response to a different question, and I’m certainly not trying to be disrespectful. I deal with Craig literally every day, or every week, and most of the time we agree, and obviously this is an usual situation, or unique situation. MR. STONE-Okay, but he is commenting. Let him continue, but it does say in this letter, and this letter is not intended as a new determination. MR. LAPPER-And my point is that I asked for a new determination based upon a new argument. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And the letter that I submitted. MR. STONE-In September. MR. LAPPER-In September. The letter, the first letter that talked about the modification, we didn’t make a set of copies, but that was also copied to Mr. Stone. I’m sorry, it was addressed to Craig Brown and to Lew Stone, and it was dated June 28, 2002. I have the original, but I don’t have copies. It probably doesn’t, I know how your files go. Every time there’s a new appeal, it’s a new file, so you probably don’t have it in the file. MR. STONE-We don’t have it. MR. LAPPER-I’ll need it back, because that’s my only copy, but that is a fundamentally different argument than I made with him the second time, even though I struck out twice. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, let Craig continue if you would. Craig, do you have more you want to say? MR. BROWN-I don’t think so. No, I think everything that I have is in this March 7 letter. My th recollection is there was another letter, after this September 10 letter to kind of prod me, try th and prod me one more time to make a determination that they might be able to appeal, and I think there’s, I think Stephanie may have done a. MR. LAPPER-Is there another letter? MR. BROWN-Yes. So there’s another letter dated after the September 10 letter that I think my th recollection is references the September 10 letter, but, and I guess I can only go back to intent. th My intent was to not change my position. Obviously that’s the intent of the letter, that to expand or add any uses to the property requires a Use Variance. MR. STONE-All right. Can either of you comment, you guys jump in any time you want, but let me just ask this question about two businesses. I mean, I could argue, as you have, Mr. Lapper, that if Mr. Schuerlein was in the, whatever the other business was, he probably could, nobody would know, in one sense, that he’s fabricating something else inside the same 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) building, but the point is, it’s another business. It’s another owner, and that, to me, is important, and I don’t know what the law. MR. LAPPER-Well, I guess that’s the nature of our appeal, that first we’re talking about whether or not we have standing to appeal, based upon the Statute of Limitations. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-What Stephanie just handed to me is her letter to Craig in March, which basically says you never responded to our September 10 letter. If you want, we could read both of those th in, both this and the June 28 letter into the record. th MR. STONE-Part of our file is this March 7 letter, which, is that a response to that letter, you’re th saying? MR. BROWN-That’s a response to, I believe, the March. MR. LAPPER-To the September letter. MR. BROWN-There’s a March 5 or 6, what’s Stephanie’s letter dated? thth MR. LAPPER-Stephanie’s memo to you was March 7. th MR. BROWN-March 7. So I responded that day, to her prodding that says please respond to th my September letter. MR. LAPPER-See, we never got a response to the September 10 letter. th MR. BROWN-Not a written response. MR. LAPPER-Not a written response. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. LAPPER-I know that we called a bunch of times, and we were sort of hoping that you’d go along with it. MR. STONE-Chuck, go ahead, comment. MR. ABBATE-Yes, please. You have it easy this evening, Counselor. MR. LAPPER-So far. MR. ABBATE-So far. You opened the door to history, and I spent three days working on this thing, and I’m going to attempt to convince you how wrong you are. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. ABBATE-After reviewing the documents you submitted, I have problems with your assertions and your arguments. The Use Variance No. 77-1997, Page Two, Line Three, opened the door to address past history by stating, “Subject property has historically been used in a commercial manner”. In it’s infinite wisdom, the ZBA felt that a brief history was important. Now, I wish to address seven points, and then after I’m done, then you can tell me where I went wrong. MR. LAPPER-Okay. 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) MR. ABBATE-Okay. One, on July 1, 2002, the Zoning Administrator informed you that your request to modify the Use Variance 77-1997 is not appropriate. Comment. I have not been furnished a copy of your letter dated 21 June, however, if you, indeed, you request a modification, I will support the conclusion of the Zoning Administrator as such a request is inappropriate. Two, in May of 2001, Mr. Schuerlein submitted a Use Variance to the ZBA. On 27 June 2001, the ZBA tabled this request to allow Mr. Schuerlein tabled this request to allow Mr. Schuerlein to gather financial data to support his position. However, Mr. Schuerlein, on July 5, 2001, withdrew the application. Comment. If the issue was paramount to operations, why abruptly withdraw an application that implied an impending financial disaster? Three, on March the 7 2003, the Zoning Administrator sent a letter to you stating as follows. One, in th 1997 a Use Variance was, indeed issued to Mr. Schuerlein for a plumbing and heating business, and that Area Variances are specific to a particular operation. Comment. The data is clear. The statement of the Zoning Administrator is correct. Four, the Zoning Administrator also stated, “60 day time frame for appeal has expired”. Comment. The Zoning Administrator is correct. The time frame is indisputable. Five, I’d like to address your letter to Lew Stone dated April 7, 2003. The enclosure to that letter contained an application for an appeal from the Zoning Administrator’s decision. A, I have problems with several assertions in your appeal. Comment One, you claim, in line three, that, “Approval of the ZBA provided Mr. Schuerlein with relief from the Town Code allowing him to perform certain commercial activities”. Comment. Your interpretation surpasses the boundaries of the intent of the ZBA approval, and that approval was “for operating a plumbing and heating business in an existing structure”. Comment. The ZBA record of resolution motion to approve in Paragraph One, Line Three, specifically addressed the plumbing and heating business, and there is no implication that diverse commercial businesses be availed of the opportunity to grasp the life raft in a theoretically drowning business. Six, the ZBA’s 77 of 1997 decision in the case of your client complied fully with Section 267B, Paragraph Two, Subparagraph C, i.e. “The Board of Appeals, in the granting of Use Variances, shall grant the minimum variance that it shall deem necessary and adequate to address the unnecessary hardship proven by the applicant”. Line 10 of your summary asserts “The Board conditioned its approval by requiring that the business and the structure could not perform retail sales, nor could there be any outside storage”. I do believe your reading is an inaccurate statement of fact. Comment, two, Page Two, Line 13 of the ZBA’s approval stated, “If we approve this Use Variance, that it would include an expressed condition that, there be no retail sales or retail use of the property”. This, in fact, sir, implies a (lost word) stinging limitations on approval, and, Seven, finally the question becomes how do I judge the intent of the ZBA of 1997. It would not be unreasonable to use the legal criteria, what would a reasonable person conclude from the facts presented in the ZBA record of resolution. The answer, Counselor, is simple. The ZBA Board of 1997 placed severe limitations on its approval which included any other business, other than a plumbing and heating business. Now, Counselor, tell me where I’m wrong. MR. LAPPER-Okay. I guess, first and foremost, I think you have a decision in front of you about whether or not we have standing to make the appeal, based upon my June letter, my September letter, whether those were asking for different interpretations, and even though Craig said in both cases his determination was that a new Use Variance application was required, whether or not I have the right to appeal to this Board, the March letter, in response to my September letter, because I think I asked a different question, in that I didn’t say that we wanted to modify it. I said that it’s fundamentally the same use, which is a different argument, which is a different request for determination. You were going of the nature, obviously you don’t buy my argument, and you’re going, you’re skipping over that procedural step, and you’re saying that you don’t agree with, you agree with Craig, which you have absolutely the right to do, but that’s sort of getting ahead of where we are right now, but if I could just respond to that, if I had said commercial uses, you’re a little bit offended. So I want to explain that I don’t think I’m pushing the envelope, because I think that that’s how you interpret it. If I had said, hey, you know, a plumbing and heating business is commercial, and obviously even though we can’t do retail here, you know, a pizzeria is also commercial, and I said, hey, pizzeria, plumbing and heating, they’re essentially the same, then obviously, you know, you’d kick my but out of here and that would be appropriate, but what I’m trying to say here is that very fundamentally the fabrication of plumbing and heating and installation is the same as the 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) fabrication that would be Mr. Schuerlein to answer your questions directly, is very much the same use, the same type of use, category of use under the Town Code that what you’re doing in a plumbing and heating business, where you’re not allowed to have a showroom and you’re not allowed to have customers come there, and you’re just having your office and your fabrication and your storage, your inventory, that that’s the exact same thing that happens in a little part of the building in the back where they’re doing that for kitchen countertops that are also part of the home building industry, and get installed off site into homes. So I’m making a totally separate argument that I’m not asking to modify it. I’m saying it’s the same, and therefore that the variance that you granted for that relief , that the Board granted in ’97, can be re-interpreted to include that use, that you could say that based on substantial evidence of the type of use, that that’s okay. You could either say it’s okay or it’s not okay, but you can’t get to that until you first answer the first question about whether or not I asked a different question in September than we asked in June. MR. ABBATE-Would you agree that the 60 day time frame for the appeal has expired? MR. LAPPER-Not on the March, the letter, the decision was issued in March, and we appealed within 60 days. MR. ABBATE-That’s your position. That’s fine. I don’t agree. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MR. STONE-So, you’re saying to us, right now, from what I heard you say, you would like us to determine whether we should even go on? MR. LAPPER-Well, I didn’t anticipate that that would be an issue until I read the Staff notes, a couple of days ago, that that’s what the Staff had suggested. So, I mean, I got a determination in March. I thought that I had made a totally new argument, a new request for determination in September, and I was hoping that it took that long for Craig to respond to me because he was going to look favorably on it and I wasn’t really pushing it, but, ultimately, we got his determination, and obviously, he didn’t agree. So within 60 days I had to appeal, and that’s why we’re here. MR. ABBATE-You can’t appeal an appeal that’s already expired. MR. LAPPER-Well, I think I asked a different question, so it hasn’t already expired. I mean, I didn’t ask the question because I wanted to start the Statute of Limitations again. I decided that since we couldn’t find law on the modification, it wasn’t worth arguing that appeal, and instead, we looked at the Code, and said this is essentially the same use, and therefore it should come within the ambit of your approval in ’97. MR. STONE-Okay, but this motion that was approved in 1997, in part, “I move that we approve the application to the extent it requests and will allow Mr. Schuerlein to operate a plumbing and heating business in the existing structure”. That’s what it says. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HAYES-I think we should decide the standing issue. MR. STONE-Yes. MR. HAYES-Before we get to the substance. MR. BROWN-That’s the only issue before you tonight is do they have standing to proceed. There’s no, you know, do they need a variance, do they not need a variance. Do they, the issue is. 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) MR. STONE-You’re saying the appeal is not before? MR. BROWN-Well, the appeal of the determination, yes, I guess it is. MR. ABBATE-You’re saying this is a very narrow issue for us tonight. MR. STONE-Well, there’s two issues. One, do we want to even discuss hearing an appeal. Do we think there’s standing to hear an appeal, and I would entertain a motion, and we’ll have discussion. Mr. Abbate, you obviously feel that we shouldn’t entertain it. Would you just move, succinctly, and we’ll talk about it. MR. ABBATE-All right. MOTION THAT WE DO NOT ENTERTAIN NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 2-2003 PAUL SCHUERLEIN, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty: I do not believe that the appeal should be re-heard because I am convinced that the 60 day timeframe for appeal has expired, based upon the explanation of the Zoning Administrator. Duly adopted this 28 day of May, 2003, by the following vote: th MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s discuss it now. Let’s go down, the five of us. We’ll do like we regularly, except we have a motion on the table. MR. LAPPER-Shouldn’t you read into the record both of my letters, then, because the one I handed you, everyone doesn’t have. MR. STONE-This one? MR. LAPPER-The June letter, yes. Because I think you’re asking, the question is whether there are different questions that are presented. MR. STONE-Well, the June 2 letter is well outside of the timeframe, and he’s talking nd timeframe for the moment. MR. ABBATE-And also we agreed, Mr. Chairman, that we would not accept, at the last minute, additional information. It does not give us an opportunity to digest that information, and come to a fair conclusion. MR. LAPPER-I don’t care if you decide tonight. I’d just like you to thoroughly look at it. MR. STONE-Well, let’s just discuss where, I mean, basically, this says you asked the Zoning Administrator to reconsider. Is that correct? MR. LAPPER-The June letter said that, can the Board hear this as a modification so we don’t have to meet the Use Variance standards, and I cited some cases. MR. HAYES-Craig says no. MR. STONE-And Craig said no. MR. LAPPER-And the second time I said we don’t need to modify it because it’s essentially the same and I’d like a determination that it’s okay to substitute a part of the square footage with essentially the same use. MR. HAYES-And you’re saying that’s argument number two? 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) MR. LAPPER-And I’m saying that’s argument number two, different question, different determination. I get a right to appeal the second one, even though we chose not to appeal the first one. MR. HAYES-So you made argument number two when? MR. LAPPER-September. MR. HAYES-And Craig responded when? MR. LAPPER-March, and within 60 days of receiving his March letter, we appealed. MR. STONE-But his determination was not a determination. MR. LAPPER-I think it was. We asked a new question. We deserve a determination. MR. STONE-Okay, but his question is that he responded to that by saying this is not a new determination. I haven’t changed. That’s what he said. MR. LAPPER-Right, and we disagree with him that we say that we asked a different question. We had the right to a new determination. Even though he came to the same conclusion, it was based upon a different argument. MR. STONE-All right. Well, let’s just talk about the motion that’s on the table. Jim, you want to start? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I see no reason why you couldn’t appeal, you know, the most recent letter, as you have suggested, and I think it’s something to consider. We’re talking about local businesses. We’re not talking about X, Y Z Corporation, and I think that we have to remember that, you know, people’s idea of what they do changes over time. That may not necessarily be your end of the business, but the countertop end of the business, I mean, it’s a benign use of that building. I mean, certainly if there have been complaints rolling in to the office that it was creating a nuisance in the neighborhood, then it would be of a concern, but I would think that, you know, you can have secondary uses, and, you know, whether it has to go back for a variance, I don’t know if that’s applicable at this time or it could be done, you know, on the side, but I would think that we could listen, you know, to why they think this is okay, and, you know, it’s a disagreement. The Zoning Administrator may be correct. I don’t know that, either, but I think at the same time that it doesn’t do us any wrong to listen, and if it helps someone to nurture a business in the community, that’s a great thing as far as I’m concerned. MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re saying no to the motion. MR. UNDERWOOD-No to the motion. MR. STONE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-I agree with Jim on this. I think we’re basically allowing them to come forward tonight because they have a right to appeal, and I don’t think we can preclude them from coming before us to ask, I don’t think we should preclude them coming before us. Even if we don’t agree with the substance of their argument, they should at least have the right to make the argument. I think that’s what we’re here for is to hear such appeals. So I would be against the motion. MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime? MR. HAYES-Well, I think that, in this particular case, you know, in the legal field, there’s numerous circumstances where advocates try a number of different directions or different arguments, some successfully, some not, but in this particular case, it does appear to me that the 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) second argument was different than the first one, and that, in its substance and in probably the precedent that would apply to it. I guess that’s the good news. The bad news is I agree with Craig, on the motion, but in essence there’s no doubt in my mind that that represents a new and different argument. So I would be against a motion against standing. MR. STONE-So you’re saying that we should hear. MR. HAYES-Because it is a different argument, I really do, yes. MR. STONE-Okay. Chuck? MR. MC NULTY-My head’s spinning trying to sort out the different things that we’ve got to do here. If what’s being appealed is Craig’s determination on March 7, 2003, then he’s answering the same question as he answering the same question as he answered six or seven months ago. I guess that argument could be, I could agree that they have a right to appeal that. Frankly, my initial reaction is what part of no don’t these people understand. As far as the rest of it goes, it’s going to be tough if they get to the point of coming back. I agree with Craig that I don’t think you can modify this Use Variance. Use Variances are specific. The specific Use Variance at the time was for a plumbing business. I also personally think that there, it’s being characterized as a commercial activity. I think it’s a manufacturing activity. You’re not retail selling on the property. That would be commercial activity. MR. LAPPER-I actually agree with you. MR. MC NULTY-I think really that what’s required, if they want to continue this, is to come in for a Use Variance for light manufacturing, or light industrial, but, that aside, if they indeed are appealing the determination that Craig made on March 7, which was that he wasn’t making a th determination, then I would be opposed to the current motion, even though I seconded it. MR. STONE-Norm? MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I agree with Chuck’s first statement about head spinning here. I’m trying to read these letters at this hour and each of the letters refers to other dates, and the thing I can’t get out of my head is that whether it’s something different or not, we’ve had, in the past, when a use is expanded, we have had people required to come in and get another Use Variance to expand the exact same use. MR. LAPPER-But it’s in the same square footage in the building. It’s just his use contracted. So I’m not sure it’s an expansion. Because it’s just some space that was previously devoted to plumbing and heating is now countertop. MR. STONE-Let the man talk now over here, please. MR. HIMES-Well, yes, but it is an expansion into, something else is being added, another use, an expansion of the use or a new use, either way, it seems to me that. MR. LAPPER-You’re getting to the ultimate question, and not the procedural question. MR. HIMES-Yes. MR. STONE-Let him talk. MR. HIMES-So, I tend to go along, I think, with what Craig feels here, and that, but I can’t reconcile it in my mind. MR. LAPPER-It’s not an easy one. 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) MR. HIMES-As to how much time expired between one piece of correspondence and another. We’ve got this thing from September until March. It looks like it expired or you didn’t get the letter. I mean, who knows. So, I just feel this is just such nitty gritty that I would like to move on to something substantive. MR. STONE-Okay. Well, that’s what we’re going to, basically, I’m sure we’re going to do, and I will make a request, when Mr. Abbate tells me what he’s going to do with this. Are you going to vote for your motion? MR. ABBATE-There’s a lot of truth in what everybody has said this evening. Jaime’s touched on this thing. Counselor is making an attempt to prove his case, and that’s, after all, what he’s retained for. I don’t have a problem with that, but there’s no reason that we can’t say, Counselor is attempting to prove a theory which would benefit his client. Nothing wrong with that. I basically say that the Zoning Administrator is attempting to prove his theory, and there’s nothing wrong with that, and so having read the documentation that I have, I’m convinced that the Zoning Administrator is correct. So that’s my position. MR. STONE-Okay. For purposes of getting this motion voted on, I will say I’m against it, just for the purpose, and I will call the question. MR. BROWN-Just for my clarification, the motion was to not hear the appeal? Because it’s timed out. MR. HAYES-And it’s been made and seconded. MR. BROWN-Okay. Not a determination about the appeal. MR. STONE-No, no. I’ll get to that. You’re still pristine. MR. BROWN-No, no, no. I just wanted to be clear. MR. STONE-Strictly procedural to say that, under certain conditions, we will entertain this appeal, but I will put the conditions on it when we get done. Just, would you call the vote? MR. BROWN-Absolutely. AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Himes NOES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone ABSENT: Mr. Bryant MR. STONE-Okay. So we’ve said we will hear. Now, here are the conditions, as far as I’m concerned, and I hope the Board will back me up. We will not hear it tonight. MR. LAPPER-Okay. We will be provided with a complete and total record of all correspondence dating back to 1997, so that we can study every piece of word that has been written about it, including the motion that we did get, and everything else, and we will consider it next month. MR. HAYES-Maybe a little time continuum or whatever. MR. STONE-Yes. Time would be very helpful, and the points that, you make some good arguments. If you hear what you heard on the underside of all of the discussions, that the support is very strong for the Zoning Administrator. MR. LAPPER-I want to consider it mixed, but I think that’s a wise move, and we’ll get everything together, in chronological order, and submit it. 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) MR. STONE-And this is obviously directed toward Craig, a chronology of your actions, and notes so that we can, we’ll have them in time for next month, and we can study them as the Board has asked. MR. ABBATE-I’d like to have a copy of Use Variance No. 77-1997. MR. STONE-You have it. I hate to bring that to your attention. MR. LAPPER-We’ll resubmit everything in a packet. MR. ABBATE-I must have left it at home. All right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you guys doing stone countertops or regular ones? What are you doing? PAUL SCHUERLEIN MR. SCHUERLEIN-Formica. MR. UNDERWOOD-Formica. MR. STONE-Brand? MR. LAPPER-Laminate. MR. BROWN-Just a procedural question. With 15 items already slated for next month’s agenda, and it being way past any submittal deadline where Staff can have a reasonable time to review anything, I don’t think a June ZBA agenda is really going to fit. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. BROWN-Unless you want to do a Special Meeting some time, with just this application. There’s a lot of items already that are on the Board. MR. ABBATE-Can I recommend a Special Meeting for this? I think it’s important for the client as well as the Zoning Board, that we concentrate on this case, because this is going to set precedence. MR. STONE-That’s fine with me. How about the rest of the Board? MR. URRICO-That’s fine with me. MR. STONE-Does anybody have an objection? That’s fine. I’ll tell you what, we’ll hold the last Wednesday open. MR. ABBATE-Okay. MR. STONE-Of June. MR. ABBATE-Because I think it’s important, Lew, for everybody. MR. STONE-No, that’s fine. MR. ABBATE-I really do. MR. STONE-Okay. See our meetings are the 18 and the 25 next month, our normal meetings. thth 51 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) MR. ABBATE-What’s the last Wednesday? MR. STONE-The 25. We’ve got to do it before that, then. th MR. ABBATE-Well, do it the Wednesday before the 18. How’s that sound? th MR. STONE-The 11? th MR. ABBATE-Yes. That way we can devote, give us time to read and devote our attention, focus strictly on. MR. STONE-Well, that’s only two weeks. Is that enough time for everybody? I won’t be here. I’ll be in California, with my new grandson. MR. HIMES-I can’t make the 11 either. th MR. BROWN-I would probably suggest that you don’t do the 11 because that’s the same night th as the Warren County Planning Board meeting. MR. STONE-Mr. Strough, when do you have meetings next month? JOHN STROUGH MR. STROUGH-Well, Tuesday, and then two other meetings, maybe three. MR. BROWN-The Planning Board meetings are the 17, the 24, and the 26 is going to be a ththth Special meeting, for the Planning Board. MR. STONE-So you have a meeting on the 26? The 26 there’s a meeting? thth MR. BROWN-Yes. Well, how about the next, I’m not going to be here. I can tell you that right now. Well, I guess the next question is, before we even answer, this one, when’s the deadline to have this information submitted by the applicant? MR. STONE-Well, let’s figure out when we’re going to have it. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. HAYES-Versus having a Special Meeting, why don’t we add it to the 25 . That’s still a th long time to get this. MR. STONE-Yes, let’s try it on the 25 and we’ll try to, let’s set it for the 25, with the provision thth that if we get totally bogged down, we may say it’ll be at our pleasure, if, you will. Is that reasonable, guys? On the 25. That’ll be the end of the agenda, and if you’re all tired out, we’ll th put it off. MR. BROWN-And we want the information submitted by? MR. STONE-By the regular. MR. URRICO-A week from now? MR. BROWN-The 8. th MR. STONE-Ten days from now. MR. BROWN-June 8. th 52 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) MR. URRICO-June 8 is a Sunday. th MR. STONE-No, the 6 is a Friday. Let’s say by close of business on the 6. thth MR. BROWN-June 6. th MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-How about Monday the 9? th MR. STONE-You’ve got it, the 9. th MR. HAYES-We’re liberal. MR. ABBATE-We’re easy to get along with, Counselor, you know that. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. STONE-Thank you. (lost words) it’s going to be the 25, and we’re going to take the th prerogative, if we really are exhausted, we might not do it then. Are you a pro or a con? AUDIENCE MEMBER-I’m a con. I live next door to them. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, there was a public hearing advertised. You may want to at least open it. MR. STONE-Well, they’re here. We’ve got two people here. MR. BROWN-That’s what I was going to say. I saw somebody sitting there. MR. STONE-Well, he’s will to come back. MR. BROWN-Okay. It just was advertised. You may want to open it, procedurally, and keep it open. MR. STONE-All right. Mr. Lapper, I’m going to open the public hearing on this thing, because there are a couple of people here, and I’ll leave it open until the 25. th PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. STONE-So you can do it on the 25, your comments, if you want, but the public hearing th has been opened. MR. BROWN-Do you want to take comment tonight? MR. LAPPER-Is it on for a public hearing? MR. URRICO-Do you want to take comments tonight? MR. ABBATE-Yes, it was advertised. MR. STONE-Do you have something you want to say to us tonight? All right, well, come forward and identify yourself. RICK ROTHSTEIN 53 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) MR. ROTHSTEIN-Well, my name’s Rick Rothstein and I live at 63 Zenas Drive. I live on the south side of Mr. Schuerlein’s property. When Mr. Schuerlein originally intended to purchase the property, he came to us and he said he was just going to put in, he was in plumbing and heating, but the property he was going to use just for storage, and he asked me to sign a petition on that, and I did, and now the last year or two the noise has been busy. It’s been noisy there. My bedroom, my part of the house, I work nights. I’m a midnight worker, and on Monday mornings, he has a trash guy comes in, he’s got a trash hopper. Every Monday he comes in, between seven and nine, wakes me up. Also Paul purchased a, I guess a front end loader last year, and he’s always toying around with that, and that could be up anytime, you know, eight o’clock, nine o’clock at night, and we understood that, yes, if it’s going to have a business there, you know, to keep business hours. He has done a lot of improvements on the property. I can’t deny that. He has made it a lot better, but one eyesore is we’ve got a barn that sits on the back of his property and we’ve been looking at it for 17 years. He leases it to the, I guess the Lake George Opera Festival, and it’s an eyesore, and I guess pretty much all we want to say is it’s been noisier. DONNA ROTHSTEIN MRS. ROTHSTEIN-Well, we share the property line, and the noise level has gotten unbelievable, already, and if he’s going to have somebody over there pounding, making cabinets all day long, it’s only going to get worse. MR. ROTHSTEIN-Well, he has, I guess the guy has been in there making cabinets, and he, I know Paulie parks his vehicles on the back of his property, and that’s probably about 50 feet from our bedroom, you know, and in the wintertime he goes out and he starts things up, leaves them running. It’s noisy. He goes back there and he’s moving equipment from trucks to different trucks. MRS. ROTHSTEIN-Piles, moving piles. MR. STONE-The only comment I want to make is what he’s doing is permitted by the Use Variance in 1997. MR. ROTHSTEIN-Okay. MR. STONE-There’s nothing wrong with commenting on it, and certainly, it has an effect in terms of what may go on. MR. ROTHSTEIN-I guess my concern is that, what’s going to prevent him, now he has this cabinetmaker in there right now. What’s going to prevent him from putting other businesses in there? MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ROTHSTEIN-And that is a concern of ours. MR. STONE-Okay. MR. ABBATE-And what is your name again, sir? Are you going to be here at our next meeting? MR. ROTHSTEIN-I’ve got to look at my schedule. I’ll try. My name is Rick Rothstein. I live at 63 Zenas. MR. ABBATE-Okay. Because since the public hearing, since the individual addressed cabinetmaking, it seems to me that somewhere along the line I read, if I get my recall correct, that a Certificate of Occupancy has never been issued. Am I correct on that, Zoning Administrator? 54 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 5/28/03) MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. So this is boggling my mind. Since he brought it up, I have to raise the issue. MR. STONE-Absolutely, and we will take it up when we talk about it. It obviously weighs to the argument. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. STONE-Okay. So I will leave the public hearing open until some time on the 25, and we’ll th take it up at that point, and you will provide everything that. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STONE-Inundate us with material. MR. ROTHSTEIN-Okay. MR. ABBATE-Thank you. MR. STONE-The meeting is adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Lewis Stone, Chairman 55